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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds real behavioral context the schema/annotations do not: the default status filter (only Completed) that an agent could otherwise get wrong, the full status enumeration, and the 100-record page cap. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is queried and what comes back, then the default filter, then pagination and the underlying endpoint. No sentence is filler.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, default filtering, and pagination. It could still note how the listed summaries relate to fetching a full form via intakeq_get_intake, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 already documents all 9 parameters in detail. The description restates the 'all' flag and the page size rather than adding format, defaults, or edge cases beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Query submitted intake questionnaires') and even enumerates the summary fields returned (client, status, questionnaire, practitioner, dates). It is easy to distinguish from intakeq_get_intake, which fetches a single form. However, it never names or contrasts itself with a sibling, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

It explains the default scope ('By default only completed forms; set all=true for every status'), which is genuine conditional guidance. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus intakeq_get_intake or intakeq_list_questionnaires, so usage against alternatives is only implied.

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