get_form_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says little beyond 'Retrieves'. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, whether spam is included by default, authentication requirements, or what a result entry looks like. 'Recent' is the sole behavioral hint and is vague.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name. The enumerated list ('leads, contact inquiries, and submission entries') is slightly redundant, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 simple read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and hints at return content. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the returned shape, ordering, and pagination than it does, leaving gaps for an agent calling it.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, status, form_id) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only that submissions are 'recent' and consist of leads/contact inquiries, which is marginal semantic value over the schema.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('leads, contact inquiries, and submission entries received by a specific form endpoint'), making clear this is a read of form submissions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_form_details, but no sibling plausibly overlaps, so an agent can still select it confidently.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid form_id from list_forms), and no exclusions. The only hint is the word 'recent', which implies a recency-oriented listing but is not framed as usage guidance.

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