summarize_responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: respondent-supplied labels and option values are untrusted and may contain injected instructions, plus the note that results are live and should be re-fetched. It stops short of describing freshness/pagination limits, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Output contents come first, then the sibling routing rule, then the security caveat — each in its own short block. No sentence is redundant, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the shape an agent should expect. With annotations covering safety and one fully documented parameter, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID/public-id format. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ("Summarize a form's submitted responses") and immediately enumerates the outputs: totals, per-field answered counts, option counts for choice fields, min/max/avg for numeric fields. This clearly separates it from list_form_responses, which returns raw rows.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling alternative and the selecting condition: "Prefer this over list_form_responses when you only need totals or headcounts, such as 'how many are attending'." It also gives a polling hint ("Check back later by calling it again"), covering the when/when-else cases.

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