Read ad-hoc submissions from the field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('Oldest first'), the default time window ('defaults to the last 7 days'), supported content types, and the attachment-id convention for download_attachment. It could additionally state read-only behavior more explicitly, but the title and content make it sufficiently clear.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core intent, then scope, ordering/default, and attachment integration. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler or repetition of schema 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?

The tool is a low-complexity read-only list operation. The description covers what the response contains, ordering, default date filtering, and downstream attachment retrieval. Pagination details are already covered in the schema descriptions, and no output schema exists, so the description sufficiently fills that gap.

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 schema already describes all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by stating the default date range ('defaults to the last 7 days') and explaining how returned photo/file ids relate to download_attachment via scope_id. This is meaningful but modest extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('query/read'), names the resource (ad-hoc submissions reported by people on their own), and clearly distinguishes this from task answers: 'not answers to a task' and 'the task index never shows these.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from query_tasks and get_task_answer.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Check this whenever a question is about problems or reports.' It also gives a when-not: 'not answers to a task,' and explains why alternatives won't work: 'the task index never shows these.' This is strong routing guidance.

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