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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is scoped to the current team, respects a time window, and returns an aggregation of metrics rather than raw records. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 main purpose, followed by an organized enumerated list of statistics, ending with a useful intent statement. The list is somewhat long, but every element provides meaningful context about the return value; no filler or redundant information is present.

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 that the tool has an output schema and a rich description listing the exact statistics returned, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, time span, and the metrics available, though it could go slightly further in differentiating from closely related tools like get_form_funnel or specifying the current-team prerequisite more explicitly.

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?

The input schema already documents formId and days with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds 'over the last N days' and the notion of 'current team', but it does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already gives. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read submission statistics for a form in the current team over the last N days.' It then enumerates the exact categories of statistics returned, making the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like get_form or list_examinees.

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?

The closing sentence gives a clear use case: 'Use this to gauge how a quiz is performing and to suggest improvements.' This provides context on when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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