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

Annotations declare the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the $1 credit cost after trial, the 30-day lifetime, the 100-response cap, and the return of a public link and private owner token. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations, though it does not describe potential side effects like credit depletion during trial.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. It is free of unnecessary words and clearly structured, though it could be slightly enhanced by separating the cost and return info into distinct sentences for readability. Still, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and a nested question schema, the description provides only high-level context: lifetime, response limit, cost, and return types. It does not explain how to structure questions or what constitutes valid input, leaning entirely on the schema. It also lacks guidance on when to create a form versus other operations. The description is adequate but leaves several important decision points unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (title, questions, description). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent entirely dependent on the schema to understand parameter meaning, which is a significant gap for a tool with nested objects and required 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as creating a form with specific constraints (30 days, 100 responses, cost, return values). It is unambiguously distinct from sibling tools like collect_read_form or collect_delete_form, and the verb 'create' plus resource 'form' defines its purpose precisely.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios that would favor creating a form, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'use collect_read_form instead'). The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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