Get submittal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned content, including nested submitted items with manufacturer, status, and return date — filling in for the absent output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key outcome (what fields come back) before the mechanism (lookup by submittal_id). There is mild redundancy between the first sentence's field list and the second sentence's restatement, but no wasted framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values and does so with a concrete field inventory. It stops short of noting failure behavior (e.g., invalid or missing submittal_id), which is the only material gap for a single-record read.

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% and the single parameter already carries a description pointing back to list_submittals. The description restates the same provenance ('by submittal_id') without adding format or edge-case details, so the schema does the heavy lifting — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads one Contractor Foreman submittal by submittal_id') and immediately distinguishes itself from list_submittals by describing the extra fields it returns (plan sheet, specification section, items with manufacturer/status/return date). An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the list sibling.

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 framing 'what list_submittals gives plus ...' implicitly tells the agent this is the detail follow-up to list_submittals, and the schema reinforces the dependency ('submittal_id from list_submittals'). It lacks an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement (e.g., 'use only when you need item-level detail'), so it stops short of a 5.

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