List Routing Form Submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that with 'Required scopes: routing_forms:read' and the bounded page_token note, but says nothing about quota cost, result format, or completeness guarantees.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and free of padding. The only soft filler is 'Reads Calendly data,' which conveys almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what submissions look like or how continuation state is returned when using all_pages/max_items, but it does not. The auth-scope note and pagination hint partially compensate, leaving it adequate but incomplete for a 7-parameter listing tool.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters including sort syntax, count bounds, and page_token semantics. The description's 'bounded opaque page_token retrieval' adds only a marginal gloss on page_token, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the tool's name/title, which is the definition of a tautological purpose statement. It never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like list_routing_forms or get_routing_form_submission, so an agent gains nothing about scope from the description itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., get_routing_form_submission for a single record). The only routing hint is the phrase 'Supports bounded opaque page_token retrieval,' which is a capability note rather than usage guidance.

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