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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it is an account-wide full-text GET search with example query fields, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or result format.

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?

The description is two front-loaded sentences: the first states the action, scope, and examples; the second supplies the API endpoint. There is no filler or repetition, so every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool whose four parameters are fully documented in the schema and whose read-only nature is covered by annotations, the description supplies the missing scope and search examples. It omits any note about pagination or result structure, but with no output schema and complete parameter coverage this is a minor gap.

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 the schema documents all four parameters including order, page size, and page number. The description's example of searching by a person's email or name slightly enriches the 'search' parameter, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Full-text search'), resource ('submissions'), and scope ('across every form in the account'), with examples of searchable fields. This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as formstack_list_form_submissions or formstack_count_form_submissions.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'across every form in the account' implies a cross-form search context, but that is part of the purpose statement, not explicit usage guidance.

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