get-crm-submission

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the crm:read scope. It does not disclose behavior such as 404 handling or response shape, but for a simple GET this is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the endpoint and scope. There is no wasted text or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter GET with readOnly hint, the endpoint, id schema, and scope provide enough context to invoke the tool correctly. A note about missing submissions could add value, but it is not essential for a simple fetch.

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%, and the id parameter is already described as 'Submission id.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond the endpoint path parameter, so it stays at the baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch a CRM lead submission' with the exact HTTP endpoint, making the operation a single-resource GET. The resource term 'submission' distinguishes it from sibling get-crm-lead, and the scope is also specified.

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 provides clear retrieval context for a specific submission by id, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of list-crm-submissions or get-crm-lead. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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