List submissions

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only', warns that the payload is sensitive personal data, and states the result cap (up to `limit`, default 20) for one form. It omits pagination/ordering behavior and what happens when more submissions exist than `limit`, so the disclosure is strong but not complete.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and the privacy constraint, then the return cap, then the dependency. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety posture, privacy handling, result bounds, and the formId dependency. The main remaining gap is whether results are truncated or paginated and in what order they are returned, which matters for a limit-bearing list endpoint.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the default of 20 and adds the useful sourcing hint for formId via list_forms, but contributes no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List decrypted submissions for a form') and immediately differentiates from the sibling list_forms by naming what it returns (respondents' personal data) rather than form metadata. An agent can tell it apart from list_forms/get_form without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only call it when the user has asked for submission content'), a handling constraint ('do not repeat it further than needed to answer'), and routes to the alternative tool needed to obtain the required formId ('use list_forms to find the formId'). Nothing about when to select this tool is left to inference.

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