Get document template submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves fill-only submissions, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'fill-only' submission. No details about response format or potential edge cases are given, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids verbosity and gets straight to the point. However, it is under-specified, so while concise, it sacrifices essential details.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, this tool is incompletely specified. The description doesn't explain what the submissions contain, how they are returned, or any constraints (e.g., time range, ordering). For a tool with only two parameters, an agent needs more context to use it correctly, especially since sibling tools like gambot_get_form_submissions may have richer descriptions.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The description doesn't explain what templateId refers to (beyond the obvious) or what the limit parameter controls (e.g., default value, maximum behavior). The agent must rely solely on the parameter names and types, which is inadequate for correct invocation, especially for the optional limit.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('fill-only submissions'), and its source ('document template'). It distinguishes itself from generic submission retrieval by specifying 'fill-only' and 'document template', which helps differentiate from sibling tools like gambot_get_form_submissions. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or reference any sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage context from the name alone, which is insufficient for a tool with many similar getters.

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