get-form-submission

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read operation, and the description adds useful context: the HTTP method GET and the required scope sales:read. This is meaningful auth-scope transparency beyond the annotation, though error behavior is not described.

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?

A single concise sentence states the action, resource, endpoint, and scope with no filler. Every part earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The return value is only implied by 'Fetch a sales form submission', and there is no explicit note about not-found or auth-failure behavior, but those are minor 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, including its type, bounds, and description 'Submission id.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb, 'Fetch', names the exact resource, 'sales form submission', and gives the endpoint pattern with an {id} placeholder. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling list-form-submissions and from get-form.

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 endpoint and 'Fetch a ... {id}' make it clear this tool retrieves a single submission by ID. It provides clear context for when to call it, though it does not explicitly name list-form-submissions as the alternative for fetching multiple submissions.

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