docuseal_list_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all submissions' without mentioning pagination, default limit, whether archived submissions are included, authentication requirements, or response format. The 'limit' parameter in the schema hints at pagination, but the description does not disclose any such behavior or constraints.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action ('List all submissions') and adds a relevant qualifier ('optional filtering'). No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite thin. It lacks information about the response shape, pagination behavior, default values beyond schema defaults, or relationship to get_submission for detail retrieval. For a list tool with four parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding what the tool returns and how the filters affect the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'optional filtering', which clarifies the role of the parameters as filters, but it does not explain how filters combine or any additional semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 'List all submissions' with a specific verb (list) and resource (submissions), and adds 'optional filtering' for scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_submission (singular) and list_templates (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 implies use for retrieving multiple submissions, and 'optional filtering' suggests parameter usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_submission for a single record or list_templates for a different resource. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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