get_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description usefully discloses that the response bundles answers plus metadata, but adds nothing on auth needs, scoping, or missing-submission behavior; with an output schema present, return details are largely covered elsewhere.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and payload front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though so terse that it forgoes the disambiguation that would earn a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool, with readOnlyHint annotations and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The one gap is failing to distinguish it from the similarly named get_submission_metadata sibling.

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 a single well-described submission_id, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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) and resource (a single submission) and clarifies the payload includes answers and metadata, which separates it from the list_my_submissions sibling. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-name siblings like get_submission_metadata or get_submission_pdf, which the description's mention of 'metadata' actively blurs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_submission_metadata, get_submission_pdf, or get_form_answers, all of which sit in the same sibling set. No prerequisites or context for choosing it are given.

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