List submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits: the returned data is decrypted personal data, and it should be handled with restraint. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, default limits, or failure modes, which are notable behavioral gaps for a data-retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy constraint follows immediately as a critical guardrail. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description is adequate and even adds a valuable privacy guardrail that annotations could not supply. It omits return-format, pagination, and ordering details, though the absence of an output schema and the simple parameter set keep the practical impact limited.

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%, and both parameters (limit with its default of 20, formId as a UUID) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what structured fields already provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"List decrypted submissions for a form" gives a specific verb (list) plus resource (submissions), with a meaningful qualifier (decrypted) and scope (for a form). Sibling tools (list_forms, get_form, create_form, delete_form) all operate on forms, so the submissions resource cleanly delineates this tool from them.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: "only call it when the user has asked for submission content," which is a clear condition, and pairs it with an avoidance rule about not repeating the data further than needed. Both the when and the when-not are stated in the description text.

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