submit

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

The description openly discloses the full workflow (fetching, parsing, extraction, merging, POST submission) and the return format (markdown-converted response body). Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world behavior, so the description adds detail on what modifications occur (POST submission) without contradicting annotations.

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 concise (4-5 sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and uses a bullet-list style for uses and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (multi-step form handling, state mutation), the description covers purpose, behavior, use cases, and return format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., page must be accessible), but overall is fairly complete.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the narrative must compensate. It explains that 'fields' holds user-provided fields and that 'csrf_selector' is used for CSRF token extraction, but does not detail 'cookies', 'session', or the exact syntax of fields array. The description provides moderate additional meaning beyond the sparse 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?

The description starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Submit a web form with smart field extraction'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch (fetching only) or login (authentication-specific). It details the multi-step process (fetch, parse, extract, merge, submit), making the tool's exact purpose immediately clear.

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 cases are explicitly listed ('login forms, search forms, API interactions behind HTML pages'), providing clear context. However, it does not advise when not to use this tool (e.g., when a simpler fetch or dedicated login tool would suffice), nor does it mention potential overlap with the 'login' sibling.

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