get-submission-file-info

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

The annotation already provides readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns 'download URLs and metadata,' which is useful context but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects). Since the operation is read-only and lacks destructive behavior, the description is minimally adequate but not exceptional.

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 (~20 words) that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant information and effectively communicates the tool's core function.

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?

This is a simple 1-parameter, read-only tool. The description, combined with the schema and readOnlyHint annotation, sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input, and output type ('download URLs and metadata'). There is no output schema, but the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the sole parameter fileId is described as 'The ID of the file to retrieve information for.' The tool description does not add further parameter details. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific file attached to a submission'). It also mentions the key output ('download URLs and metadata'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like download-submission-file (which downloads the file) and get-submission-documents (which likely lists documents). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving file metadata and URLs rather than downloading the file content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., 'for actual content, use download-submission-file'). No exclusions or conditions are provided. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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