List form responses

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses rate-limit behavior ('lower per-minute quota than other reads'), conditional email visibility, the absence of ordering/email filtering, and that programmatic submission is impossible. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence is information-dense and earns its place: return value shape, filter caveats, pagination, quota warning. It is front-loaded with the key listing behavior and does not waste words.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, it fully explains return fields (including conditional fields and totalScore), filtering limits, pagination mechanism, and rate limits. Combined with complete schema annotations, the agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 covers all 4 params (100%), so baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful semantics for submitted_after (strictly after, exclusive) and page_token (from nextPageToken), plus warns that there is no ordering/email filter. It doesn't restate param names, making it a net positive.

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?

Opens with 'Lists submitted responses', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes from sibling get_response (single) and get_form. It enumerates the exact returned fields (responseId, createTime, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: submitted_after is 'the API's only filter', 'there is no ordering or email filter, do that client-side', and 'Paginate with page_token from nextPageToken'. It also points to get_form for resolving questionIds and advises incremental polling due to lower quota.

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