get_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds beyond annotations by stating the returned shape: userId, timestamp, and answers array, plus the promise that it includes all answers. It does not discuss not-found behavior or permissions, but that is minor for a read-only single-get tool.

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 tight and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short Args block, and a Returns block. No filler or repetition; every line carries useful information. The main behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies the parameters, the return format, and the full-answers guarantee. An output schema is marked as present, so return-value details are not strictly required. A small gap is the lack of error/not-found behavior, but that does not prevent correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters, but it only restates the schema: 'Numeric form id' and 'Numeric submission id' add no real meaning beyond the integer type and the parameter names. It does not explain the relationship between form_id and submission_id or how to obtain them.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get a single submission by id, including all answers.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list_submissions or export_submissions by emphasizing 'single' and by specifying it returns all answers. The purpose is immediately 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 gives clear usage context: use this when you have a form_id and submission_id and need one full submission. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'single submission by id' phrasing effectively disambiguates it from list-oriented siblings.

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