List submissions

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

Read-only safety is already covered by readOnlyHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the default compact shape with answers keyed by question name, and the opt-in raw=true variant. It omits pagination/limit behavior relative to offset and any rate-limit or auth notes.

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, no filler, with the filtering capability front-loaded and the non-obvious return-shape behavior immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return shape (compact vs raw). It covers the main filter families well but is silent on a couple of schema parameters (includeEditLink, sort defaults) and on pagination semantics, leaving small gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter with types, bounds, and enums. The description only loosely maps the filters (date range, status, text search, pagination) and adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb (Query) and resource (a form's submissions) and enumerates the supported filters, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_submission or the other submission siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 through the filter list; there is no statement of when to reach for this versus get_submission (single record) or create_submissions. An agent can infer the bulk-list role from the name, but nothing is spelled out.

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