Show Submittal In PDF Format

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON object with file contents or a download URL, which clarifies the output format. No contradictions exist; the description complements the annotations by specifying the return type and endpoint.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose and usage. However, there is slight redundancy between 'Return detailed information...' and 'Use this to fetch the full details...' which could be combined. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 has 4 parameters (all described in schema) and annotations covering safety, the description adds the return type and endpoint. However, it omits explanation of optional parameters (page, per_page) and does not explicitly state that the PDF is returned as a JSON with a URL or base64 content. A bit more detail would enhance completeness.

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 100%, with all parameters described. The description lists required parameters (project_id, id) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The optional parameters (page, per_page) are not explained in the description, so no extra value provided.

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 clearly states it returns detailed information on a specified Submittal in PDF format, distinguishing it from other submittal tools (e.g., show_submittal_project) by explicitly mentioning 'PDF format' and the endpoint suffix '.pdf'. The verb 'Return' and resource 'Submittal in PDF format' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says to use it 'to fetch the full details of a specific Submittals by its identifier', which provides clear context. However, it does not include when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives (e.g., when to use JSON endpoints instead). The required parameters are noted, but no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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