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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /widget/survey-responses), with no mention of pagination, result caps, or authentication needs, so it adds little behavioral context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns followed by the sourcing hint. The trailing raw endpoint path is implementation detail that a model does not strictly need, keeping it just short of perfectly economical.

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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers identification and the id-sourcing dependency. It omits pagination/volume behavior, which is typical and important for a list endpoint, leaving a real gap.

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 single parameter is fully described there, including the campaign_id alias, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces where to obtain the id, which slightly aids correct invocation but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource precisely (responses belonging to a single survey) and the list_ prefix plus the sibling list_surveys makes the intent unambiguous. It does not name a verb directly, relying on the name/title for that, but a reader can immediately distinguish it from reviewsio_list_surveys or reviewsio_list_reviews.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: fetch the survey id from reviewsio_list_surveys before calling this tool. That is clear context for when to use it. It does not state exclusions or what to do when the survey has no responses, so it falls short of a 5.

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