List submittals

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are returned newest first, listing the status values, and naming the filters. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the ordering detail is a meaningful addition.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan. The first sentence duplicates several fields that are repeated with more detail in the second sentence, which is slightly wasteful but not enough to make the definition bloated.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives a helpful picture of the returned fields, status values, ordering, and filtering options. It does not mention pagination behavior or the limit maximum, but the cursor parameter description in the schema partially covers that gap.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces project and search filtering but adds little beyond the schema, and it does not explain limit or cursor pagination semantics.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('Contractor Foreman Submittals list') and names the fields returned. It clearly implies a multi-record list rather than a single record, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_submittal tool.

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 states that results can be filtered by project or search, which gives some usage context. However, it does not say when to use this list tool versus get_submittal for a single record, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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