review_submissions__get

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

annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by specifying it fetches a single resource by ID and pointing to the GET endpoint. It doesn't disclose return format, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple.

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 one concise sentence with the endpoint, and the parameter descriptions are tightly written with no fluff. Everything earns its place.

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 read-by-ID operation with full schema coverage and clear safety annotations, the description is complete. The ID source hint and include parameter cost guidance add valuable context. Could mention that it returns a single review submission resource, but that's already implied by 'Read one review submission by ID' and the endpoint.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds an important hint on where to get the ID ('from the matching list call') and clarifies how the include parameter affects API calls, going beyond the schema's base meaning.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one review submission by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list/create/update/delete review submission tools. The API endpoint is also provided for absolute clarity.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for reading a single review submission by ID, implying it should be used when the ID is known, as opposed to listing or creating. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but siblings make the contrast obvious. The 'ID from the matching list call' parameter description adds practical guidance.

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