List Forms submit-button show conditions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (a {operator, items} envelope of groups) and that these conditions attach to the survey rather than a question/page, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no conditions exist. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the resource identity is front-loaded in the first sentence. The backtick-heavy, fragment-style phrasing ('the ``{operator, items}`` envelope of groups') is slightly awkward but does not waste space.

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 whose annotations cover safety and whose single parameter is fully documented, the description is close to sufficient, and it helpfully sketches the response envelope given there is no output schema. It still leaves gaps: no explanation of what a 'show condition' does or whether the list can be empty/paginated.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the 24-char hex form id and its source (surveys_list). The description adds nothing about survey_id, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 names a specific resource (the submit button's show conditions) and even gives the REST endpoint (GET /surveys/{id}/conditions), so an agent can tell it retrieves rather than mutates conditions. It implicitly distinguishes itself from question/page/hook condition lists by tying the conditions to the survey itself, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'the submit button's show conditions' narrows the scope versus forms_conditions_question_list or forms_conditions_page_list, and 'hang directly on the survey' hints at the grouping model. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to the get/create/update/set_operator siblings for this condition type.

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