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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the module-permission prerequisite and enumerates returned fields, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it omits pagination behavior and how filters combine.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences; the resource and returned fields come first, then the prerequisite, then filter options and the endpoint. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint path and 'key dates' are marginally low-value.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, a partial view of returned fields, the module prerequisite, and filter dimensions. Only pagination/return-shape detail is genuinely absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the cursor parameter last_synced_at and the enum values. The description restates the filterable dimensions (status, assignee, text, overdue, dates) without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Names the specific resource (submittals of a project) and enumerates the returned fields (number, name, status, revision, key dates), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like fieldwire_list_rfis and fieldwire_list_forms. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

States the prerequisite ('Needs the submittals module') and the available filter dimensions, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what happens if the module is unavailable, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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