get_submission_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or that no side effects occur; the return statement duplicates the output schema.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and short, but the pipe-separated keyword block and the Args/Returns boilerplate are padding. 'Returns submission period details' is redundant given the output schema exists.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose and names the parameter, so the agent can invoke it. However, it omits usage routing and behavioral context, leaving clear gaps for a definition with no annotations.

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 0%, and the description merely echoes the schema title ('submission_period_id: Submission period ID.'). It adds no format, range, example, or other semantic detail beyond what the schema already shows.

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 'Get' and resource 'submission period by ID', with extra domain keywords ('submission period, evidence call, inquiry window'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling evidence tools such as get_written_evidence_by_id or get_oral_evidence_by_id.

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?

The only guidance is 'Use to get details of a specific evidence submission period', which merely restates the purpose. No when-not conditions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without routing information.

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