get_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the API key requirement, which are useful non-obvious details. However, it does not describe response format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it). Gaps remain for a read tool with no output schema.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Get submissions for a form') and includes the essential auth note. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 paginated read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and auth. It does not explain return values, but the nature of the tool makes this inferable. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the restatement that results are paginated, which relates to page and per_page but does not explain their mechanics. Thus, 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 description clearly states the tool retrieves submissions for a form, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It is distinguished from sibling tools like get_form (form details) and list_forms (form list) by the resource type (submissions vs forms). The pagination note further clarifies scope.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: whenever you need form submissions. It provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The mention of the required API key is a useful prerequisite, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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