ff list submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the required permission scope, that entry bodies are private, and that no automatic detail or mark-as-read call occurs. It omits pagination/return-shape behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core read action, then constraints and permission. Little waste, though 'Corrects old GET /report/submissions' is arguably migration trivia rather than invocation guidance.

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 9-parameter, low-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: filtering/pagination semantics are entirely undocumented and the return format is only gestured at ('entry bodies are private'). It should do far more to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 only 11% (just the 'account' label) across 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining page, search, date_range, entry_type, payment_statuses, sort_by, and per_page — and it explains none of them. It adds nothing beyond the one schema-documented field.

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+resource: 'Read one native individual-entry page for an explicitly selected form.' This distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like ff_form_report and ff_form_stats, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.

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 useful context ('Corrects old GET /report/submissions', requires fluentform_entries_viewer) but never states when to choose this over ff_form_report or ff_form_stats, nor when pagination/detail calls are appropriate. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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