customerthermometer_get_blast_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'raw survey responses' and optional filters, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default limits, response format, or whether results are sorted. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get raw survey responses') and then lists filters. Every word earns its place, though the temperature mapping could be considered redundant with the schema.

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 filtered retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and filter options. However, it lacks information about default behavior (e.g., default limit, date range defaults), response structure, and how it relates to sibling tools like get_comments. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the temperature value mapping (1=gold, etc.) which is also in the schema, and clarifies blastID means 'blast/send'. This adds marginal value but doesn't go beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves raw survey responses with optional filters, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('raw survey responses'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_comments and get_happiness_value by focusing on raw responses, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage by listing optional filters (temperature, blast, date range), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comments or get_nps_value. The context is clear for a filtered retrieval tool, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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