indecx_get_answers

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated one page at a time, and survey text must be treated as untrusted data, which is a security-relevant operational warning. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, each carrying distinct value: resource scope, pagination behavior, and a safety warning. The most important purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and a key security concern, but it omits the return payload shape, the semantics of the filter parameters, and how this tool relates to its siblings. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 only 38%, with actionId, startDate, and endDate described. The tool description adds some meaning to page/limit and explains the 'all' default for actionId, but it fails to clarify the purpose or interaction of email, phone, dateType, startDate, and endDate. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the parameter ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource as survey responses and the action as getting them, plus clarifies that the default 'all' actionId includes every action. It does not explicitly name a sibling distinction, but the resource and scope are specific enough to separate it from tools like indecx_get_action or indecx_get_no_response.

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 practical usage guidance for pagination ('use page/limit to continue where available') and clarifies the default 'all' scope. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over its sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative choices for different filtering needs.

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