list_email_security_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information, yet it only repeats the operation name. It does not disclose pagination, return shape, filtering semantics, or what constitutes a 'submission,' beyond the fact that it lists.

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 concise but under-specified; the four words add no information beyond the tool name. Being short is not the same as being well-structured, and there is no front-loaded distinguishing content.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a submission is and what the list contains. It does neither, so an agent cannot predict the result or distinguish it from nearby email-security list tools.

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%: account_id is documented as 'The account ID.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full burden. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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?

The description 'List email security submissions' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It identifies the verb and resource but provides no detail that distinguishes this tool from sibling email security tools such as list_email_security_investigate or list_email_security_allow_policies.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention filters, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related email-security queries, leaving the agent to guess 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.