intigriti_list_submissions

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

The description claims filters for 'severity' and 'date range' that are not present in the input schema, which only includes status, limit, and program_id. This misleads the agent into believing unsupported functionality exists. Additionally, there are no annotations, and the description does not disclose pagination, limit behavior, or return format, but the false filter claims are the critical issue.

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 concise, with two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists filters. However, the second sentence contains inaccuracies, which reduces effectiveness, though the length is appropriate.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and behavioral details. It mentions listing and filtering but omits pagination/default limits, and the unsupported filter claims make the description incomplete and partially misleading for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context that omitting program_id returns all programs, but the false mention of severity and date range filters detracts from the semantic clarity and misleads the agent about available parameters.

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 lists bug submissions, with the ability to scope to all programs or a specific one. The verb 'List' and resource 'submissions' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like intigriti_get_submission (singular retrieval) and intigriti_list_programs.

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 provides context on when to use it: listing submissions across all programs or a specific one, and supports filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know this is the list tool rather than get_submission.

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