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

Goes well past the annotations (which only say readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive) by disclosing the owner-only auth constraint, that no signature is required, the numbering-from-1 convention, the exclusive `from..to-1` range semantics, and the 100-per-call cap. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and constraint in the first two sentences, with pagination details after. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'max 200' appears twice and the '100 per call' vs limit max 200 relationship is left implicit.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers auth, range semantics, and pagination, which is nearly everything needed to invoke correctly. It never hints at the shape of a response object or what a '1-question' answer looks like, which is a minor gap given the absent output schema.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: that `from_response_number`/`to_response_number` are 1-based and exclusive at the upper bound, and that `caller` selects the account view. It does not fully reconcile the '100 per call' cap against the schema's limit maximum of 200, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb ('Get responses') plus resource ('1-question surveys'), and the '1-question' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_survey_responses_3 and get_survey_responses_5 variants. An agent can tell which survey flavor this targets without opening the schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Only the owner can read them: pass `caller` = the owner') and explains the caller-dependent-results case. It does not explicitly name the 3-question/5-question siblings as the alternative for other survey types, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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