get_form_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a boundary ("Never returns submission content") and implies a read-only stats lookup rather than a mutation. However, it omits permission requirements, error behavior for an invalid formId, and any latency/rate context.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core output defined first, followed by usage timing and a scoping caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and an important negative boundary. Only the parameter's expected value form and failure behavior remain 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% for the single formId parameter, and the description only indirectly refers to it via "for a form" without giving format or source guidance. The value it adds over the schema's type/required declarations is marginal.

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?

Names the exact resource (a form's submissions) and the exact outputs (submission counts and latest submission time), which cleanly separates it from siblings like send_test_submission and list_forms. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

"Use after sending a test to confirm it arrived" gives an explicit when-to-use and implicitly points at the send_test_submission sibling as the prerequisite. No when-not guidance or alternatives are stated, but the sequencing instruction is concrete.

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