docuseal_get_submission

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it retrieves information, but does not disclose whether authentication is required, what happens if the submission is not found, or the scope of the 'detailed information' (e.g., whether it includes submitters, documents, or audit logs). As a read operation, it is inherently non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource.

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 simplicity of the tool (single required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally acceptable. However, it leaves the agent wondering what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., field names, response structure) and provides no operational context. The description could be enhanced by listing typical response content, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 fully documents the single parameter (submission_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 for 100% schema coverage 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 action: 'Get detailed information about a specific submission.' It correctly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docuseal_list_submissions (which lists all submissions) and docuseal_get_submitter (which targets a different resource).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a submission_id) or contrast with list_submissions for finding IDs. No exclusions or contextual hints are given.

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