vebetter_example_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get example submissions', which implies a read-only operation but does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a no-parameter tool, the risk is low, but the absence of any behavioral context leaves gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity and does not repeat any schema or annotation information.

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?

Although the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the example submissions contain, how they are formatted, or how they might be used. There is no output schema to fill this gap, so the description alone is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's return value.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema definition reflects that with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 the tool retrieves example submissions for sustainable actions. The verb 'Get' and resource 'example submissions' make the function explicit. It distinguishes from the sibling 'vebetter_submit_action' which submits actions, but it does not explicitly reference that distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any related tools like vebetter_submit_action or vebetter_get_impact_categories, nor any prerequisites or context for use. The usage context must be inferred solely from the name and description.

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