Get Routing Form Submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the required OAuth scope ('routing_forms:read'), which is useful auth context but minimal beyond annotations.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: name, then action, then scope. No wasted words, though the sentence 'Reads Calendly data' is redundant with the name and could be replaced by more useful detail.

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 tool with an output schema absent, the definition is minimally adequate: it covers purpose and auth scope. However, it lacks details about the return payload or how submission_uuid is obtained, and offers no differentiation from list_routing_form_submissions.

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 50%. The schema documents the 'account' parameter well ('named private Calendly account; selects credentials'), but 'submission_uuid' has no description in the schema and none in the tool description. The description does not compensate for this gap, so baseline 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Get Routing Form Submission'), which tells the agent exactly what it retrieves. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_routing_form_submissions by the singular 'submission', though the description itself does not call out that contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_routing_form_submissions or get_routing_form. The only usage-relevant info is the required scope, which is a hard prerequisite rather than selection guidance.

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