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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing side effects (stored, triggers notifications, webhooks, integrations), failure behavior (per-field errors returned on rejection), and a concrete rate limit of 50 submissions per user per 5 minutes. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the annotation.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the write semantics and every clause carries a distinct fact (key format, sub-fields, date format, validation, rate limit, endpoint). The trailing raw endpoint reference is the only mildly redundant element.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a successful write does and what a rejected one returns (per-field errors). Combined with the rate limit and key-format guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: keys are field API IDs sourced from wufoo_get_form_fields, composite fields (name, address, checkbox) require one key per sub-field ID, and dates must be YYYYMMDD. That sub-field and date-format guidance is not visible in the schema.

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 immediately qualifies the write semantics ('exactly as if someone filled it in'). The 'WRITE:' prefix cleanly separates it from the read-oriented siblings like wufoo_list_form_entries and wufoo_get_labeled_entries.

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?

Points the agent at wufoo_get_form_fields for the key format and wufoo_list_forms for the form identifier, and warns that validation and form limits apply. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this for reading/x' exclusion, but the routing context is clear.

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