review_submissions__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is useful context but does not provide additional behavioral details like rate limits or prerequisites beyond what annotations cover.

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 sentence with the HTTP method and path, extremely concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the low complexity (simple read by ID, 2 parameters, annotations present), the description is complete enough. It could optionally mention the return format, but the agent can infer from the resource name and schema.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (id as 'Resource identifier', include as 'comma-separated list of relationships to include').

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 'Read one review submission by ID.' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like review_submissions__list (list all) and review_submissions__create, update, etc.

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 clear context: use when you have an ID to fetch a single submission. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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