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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency of the operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that; it simply repeats the action. Given the annotations, the bar for additional disclosure is lower, and the description is adequate but does not add value beyond the 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriate in length and structure, effectively stating the purpose without extraneous information.

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?

The tool has one parameter, a clear output schema, and rich annotations. The description is minimal but given the low complexity, it may suffice. However, it does not mention what the output contains or any details about the submission object. Since the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, but it could be more complete by referencing the schema or any edge cases.

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 schema describes the parameter 'submissionId' as a string with no additional description. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description only says 'by id' without clarifying that the id is the submissionId parameter, though it's inferable. It does not explain any format, constraints, or how the id is used. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'Get a single submission by id', which clearly indicates the verb (get), the resource (submission), and the identifier (id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_submissions by emphasizing 'single' and 'by id'. However, it does not explicitly mention the output schema or any specific details that would differentiate it from other get tools like get_form, but the resource is 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need a single submission by its id. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list includes list_submissions, which is for listing, but the description doesn't reference it. The context of 'single' vs 'list' is implied, but not as explicit as it could be.

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