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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds pagination behavior (100 per page, paged), the default status filter, and the mandatory-filter constraint. It does not mention rate limits, auth scope, or ordering of results, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then constraints, then the alternative tool — a sound ordering. The telegraphic fragment style ('Completed forms (submissions): id, form, number...') is dense but every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, pagination, defaults, and filter prerequisites. Minor gaps remain (e.g. behavior with status=all, whether department_id interacts with user filters) but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the at-least-one-of requirement and the mutual exclusion of user_id/user_email. It also clarifies that dates filter created_at, which sharpens start_date/end_date intent.

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 the resource (completed forms/submissions), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly routes detail retrieval to gocanvas_get_submission. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling getter without consulting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (at least one of form_id, user_id or user_email), an incompatibility rule (user_id and user_email cannot be combined), a default (status=completed), and names the alternative tool for answers. Nearly nothing is left to inference.

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