list-crm-submissions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the required crm:read scope, which is useful auth context. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any other operational caveats, so the added behavioral context is limited.

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 no wasted words. It states the operation, resource, endpoint, and required scope efficiently.

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?

The schema and annotations cover basic call mechanics, and the endpoint/scope cover access. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what a 'CRM submission' is or how it differs from related tools like list-crm-leads and get-crm-submission, the description leaves important selection and interpretation context to inference.

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%, and the parameter descriptions for q, page, and itemsPerPage already provide the necessary meaning. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CRM lead submissions'), and adds the HTTP endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation is exposed. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like list-crm-leads or list-form-submissions.

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 the required scope and endpoint but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as get-crm-submission, list-crm-leads, or list-form-submissions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and endpoint.

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