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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it states that Core renders the PDF, stores it on the job as a document with sha256, freezes the form, and returns the form with base64 PDF. It leaves out authorization requirements and error behavior beyond the missing-required-fields case.

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 front-loaded and compact: it states the action and precondition first, then side effects, then return value. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the important preconditions, side effects, and return shape. It is not fully complete because authorization and failure behavior beyond missing required fields are not described.

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?

There is one parameter, form_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies that form_id refers to a draft form, which adds some context, but it does not explicitly describe the UUID format or validate that the ID must identify a draft form.

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: submit a draft form. It clarifies the scope with the requirement that every required field must be answered and points to forms.get for missing-field checks. It does not directly differentiate from nearby siblings such as forms_fill, forms_start, or forms_cancel.

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 gives a clear precondition for use: the form must be a draft and all required fields must be answered. It also routes the agent to forms.get to identify missing fields. It does not explicitly say when to use other forms siblings instead, such as forms_fill for answering fields or forms_start for creating a draft.

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