Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the account-wide scope and the backing endpoint (GET /submissions), but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or match semantics beyond the schema's parameter docs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint before the example. The trailing 'Formstack: GET /submissions' is mildly redundant metadata but does not bloat the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, paginated search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers scope, purpose, and an example. It is nearly complete; only pagination/result-set expectations are unaddressed, which the schema's page_size/page_number largely imply.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (search, order, page_size, page_number) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that a search term can be an email or name, which is marginal beyond the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (submissions) with scope 'across every form in the account,' which implicitly contrasts with the per-form sibling formstack_list_form_submissions. It never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an example use case ('by a person's email or name'), which implies when it is useful, but offers no when-not conditions and names no alternative tools. An agent must infer that this is the cross-form search versus the form-scoped list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.