get_form_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it requires submission.read and describes that the returned submission includes answers with field-label snapshots, the parent form, receipt time, and retention deletion time.

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 with no waste. The core retrieval behavior and returned content are front-loaded, followed by the concise permission requirement.

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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the return payload despite the absence of an output schema, and adds the necessary authorization requirement.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only 'one form submission' and the permission requirement, not additional parameter syntax or format details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), resource ('one form submission'), and scope ('in full'), with the singular framing distinguishing it from sibling list_form_submissions and export_form_submissions. An agent can immediately tell this is the single-record read operation.

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 clearly frames this as retrieving one submission by ID and adds an authorization prerequisite ('Requires submission.read'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_form_submissions for finding IDs, but the single-record context and schema reference to list_form_submissions make usage clear.

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