list_entity_submissions

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

The description matches the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming a read-only operation. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs) are disclosed, but the annotation already covers the key safety aspect. The description does not contradict annotations.

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. It is front-loaded with the action and scope. However, it omits necessary details about parameters and recency definition, which could be added without excessive length.

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 lack of output schema and multiple parameters, the description is underspecified. It does not explain pagination behavior, default limit, or the return format. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter usage. It mentions entity_type in context but does not explain valid values, default behavior, or the meaning of limit/offset. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 the action (list), resource (recent entities), and filter (by entity_type for authenticated user). The name reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the specific focus on entity_submissions provides sufficient 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_entity_types or list_observations. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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