Get a Single KoboToolbox Submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns 'every field and value recorded,' which is useful but not rich detail about potential errors, response format behavior, or prerequisite authentication. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 reflects that the description adds only modest behavioral context.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, a brief parameter list, and a return statement. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clear structure. No filler or redundant elaboration exists, so every sentence 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?

For a single-submission getter with read-only annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it explains the return content, the source of submission_id, and the response_format options. It doesn't mention error cases or output structure, but given the simplicity and prior tool usage hint, it's adequately complete. A 4 reflects that minor gaps like error handling are not critical.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, each with clear explanations (e.g., uid is 'Asset uid of the form', submission_id is 'Submission id (from kobo_list_submissions)'). The description restates these in an 'Args' list but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, 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?

The description opens with 'Get the full detail of one submission by its id,' which is a specific verb–resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kobo_list_submissions (which lists many submissions). It also states the expected return ('every field and value recorded'), making the tool's exact purpose unmistakable.

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 description references that submission_id comes from kobo_list_submissions, implicitly guiding the agent to first list submissions and then fetch one by its '_id'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like kobo_export_submissions_excel or kobo_get_data_sample. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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