build_submit_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a good job: it discloses the 4096-byte GET URL limit, the two-step sidecar fallback, and dry_run side-effect. It does not fully specify the return contract, but the core behavioral traits are clearly revealed.

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 with the summary and then gives the critical constraints and parameter docs. Every sentence carries information, including the measured URL-length limit that explains the side-car behavior.

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 two-paramter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key constraints, side effects, and parameter semantics. It leaves the exact return format implicit, but the core workflow is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must document parameters, and it does: path is explained as a draft YAML file path, and dry_run's default and side-effect are described. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema 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?

States the specific verb+resource: "Build the prefilled web form URL," and positions it as the recommended route. It also distinguishes it from the REST API by noting it is the only route where legal basis can be chosen, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: it is the recommended way out, the only route that supports law_type, and sending stays with the human. It implicitly warns against using the REST API for this purpose, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative for automatic submission.

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