forms_get_forms_submissions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description 'Get Forms Submissions' is consistent with these but adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state. It doesn't mention pagination, defaults, or any side effects, so it provides minimal additional value.

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 only three words, which is extremely short. While it is concise, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It fails to convey key information about filtering, pagination, or date ranges. It reads more like a tautology than a useful explanation, offering negligible 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage but no output schema), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the submissions look like, how the date filters work, or any usage context. The schema covers parameter documentation, but the description provides no thematic overview, leaving the agent without a high-level understanding of the tool's capabilities.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, including defaults like 'Page No. By default it will be 1' and 'Limit Per Page records count. will allow maximum up to 100'. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameters, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Forms Submissions' clearly states the verb (get) and the resource (forms submissions), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'forms_get_forms', which retrieves the forms themselves; a user could confuse which tool to use. The name and description are nearly identical in information content, so it's clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forms_get_forms' or 'surveys_get_surveys_submissions'. The description does not mention any preconditions, contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea if this is the right tool for a given scenario.

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