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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operation-specific context: attachments can be listed but never downloaded through this tool, and the returned text is visitor-authored data rather than instructions. The prompt-injection caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral warning annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the security caveat is a well-placed second sentence. The first sentence is long, with a nested parenthetical listing attachment fields, which slightly blurs the scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including the non-obvious fact that attachment bytes are inaccessible here. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the response 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (which itself cross-references list_submissions and list_sites), and the description adds nothing about id or site format. With 100% schema coverage, this sits at the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read one submission (inquiry)') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: answers, state, version, assignee, notes, change history and attachments. This distinguishes it clearly from list_submissions (which yields the id) and from the write siblings such as set_submission_status or assign_submission.

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?

It gives an explicit second use case — check the version before changing state or assignee — and warns that write tools should only be used when the user explicitly asks. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use for browsing many submissions, so the exclusion side is only implied.

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