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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (plan sheet, spec section, status, dates, items), but says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent or inaccessible ID.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the returned-content list is front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-record read with rich annotations, the essentials are nearly covered: the safety profile comes from annotations and the payload contents from the description. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return structure (e.g. how items are nested) or failure behavior, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents submittal_id and even points at list_submittals as its source. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (a single submittal) and enumerates its contents (plan sheet, specification section, status, dates, items), which makes the tool's job clear. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from the adjacent list_submittals sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_submittals, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid submittal_id. The only routing clue lives in the schema ('from list_submittals'), not the description.

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