Get participant table status

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the existence signal ('No available data' string vs a number), best-effort access_mode retrieval, access_mode 'C' semantics, the closed_access_basis field, that usetokens is not evaluated on LimeSurvey 6.17.11, and that behavior is version-dependent. This far exceeds what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already convey.

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-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, followed by mechanism and edge-case detail. It is dense and version-specific, bordering on verbose, but nearly every sentence carries behavioral information relevant to correct interpretation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. The description nonetheless covers existence semantics, access-mode determination, fallback behavior, and version caveats, leaving no correctness-critical gap for an agent invoking this read-only status tool.

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% for the single survey_id parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail about survey_id, so the baseline 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 and resource: reports whether a survey has a participant table, participant count, and closed-access status. This scope is distinct from siblings like get_summary or get_survey_properties, and the description explicitly names those tools as internal mechanisms, letting an agent tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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 explains the internal mechanism (get_summary decides existence, get_survey_properties adds access_mode) but never states when an agent should call this tool versus alternatives such as limesurvey_list_participants or limesurvey_get_survey_properties. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly routed, so it is minimum viable.

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