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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by detailing the shape of the returned payload (parsed vs display values, payment/approval/workflow status) and notes no auth or pagination behavior. With no output schema, this return-content disclosure is the main behavioral signal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result content, then the API mapping. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 2-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the action, the inputs are fully documented in the schema, and the response contents are described well enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps (no note on missing-ID behavior) remain.

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 description coverage is 100% — both submission_id and encryption_password (including the X-FS-Encryption-Password header detail) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single submission) and enumerates what comes back: field label, type, display value, parsed value, plus payment, approval and workflow status. The word 'single' cleanly separates it from the list/count/search siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the fact that it retrieves one submission by ID; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternatives such as formstack_list_form_submissions or formstack_search_submissions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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