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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds that it returns a link per contact in a segment, which implies a potentially large result set, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result-size limits, or rate-limit behavior for a bulk retrieval.

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 tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler, though the raw endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent that already has the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (personalised URLs per contact) and the schema covers every parameter. It is nearly complete, with only the pagination behavior of the returned set left implicit.

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%, so all four parameters (including skip/limit paging semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('personalised survey URLs for every contact in a segment'), plus the exact REST endpoint. The plural 'for every contact in a segment' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling formbricks_get_survey_contact_link, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'how you run a targeted send' hints at the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. An agent must infer that this is the segment-wide bulk counterpart to the single-contact link tool.

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