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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, yet the description discloses substantial behavior beyond that: the entry is stored and triggers notifications, webhooks and integrations; validation failures return per-field errors; and there is a hard rate limit of 50 submissions per user per 5 minutes. It even names the underlying endpoint POST /forms/{identifier}/entries.json.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the write nature leads, followed by key format, date format, failure behavior, and rate limits in that order. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call this correctly; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter write tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the nested keying scheme, the date format, failure semantics, throttling, and the sibling needed to discover field IDs. There is no material gap left for an agent to guess.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: the fields object is keyed by field API IDs obtained from wufoo_get_form_fields, sub-fielded fields (name, address, checkbox) require one key per sub-field ID, and dates must be formatted YYYYMMDD.

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 ('submits a new entry to a form') and prefixes it with 'WRITE:' so the agent immediately separates it from read siblings like wufoo_list_form_entries and wufoo_get_labeled_entries. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Clearly implies the use case (creating an entry as if filled in by a person) and routes to the sibling wufoo_get_form_fields for obtaining the required field API IDs, plus wufoo_list_forms is referenced in the schema for the form identifier. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name an alternative for bulk submission, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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