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

With readOnlyHint already supplied, the description adds real context: the default status filter, the enumerated status values (Sent, Partial, Completed, Offline), the 100-per-page cap, and the underlying endpoint. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering or total-count behavior.

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-loads the core purpose and packs filter defaults, pagination, and endpoint into a compact block with no filler. Slightly dense but each 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 no-output-schema list tool with nine fully documented params, the description covers default filter behavior, pagination limit, and the shape of returned summaries, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Ordering and pagination iteration guidance are the only minor omissions.

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 nine parameters; baseline is 3. The description adds the status enumeration for all=true and reiterates the page cap, but adds little else beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Query submitted intake questionnaires') and clarifies it returns summaries rather than full forms, which distinguishes it implicitly from intakeq_get_intake. It does not name a sibling alternative outright, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a concrete default ('only completed forms') and the override ('set all=true for every status'), which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over intakeq_get_intake or intakeq_list_questionnaires, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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