list_form_responses

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 pagination ('Token for retrieving next page of results') and that it returns 'basic details,' but it doesn't specify what 'basic details' include, whether it requires specific permissions (e.g., access to the form), rate limits, or error handling. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, with each sentence adding value by explaining parameters and output. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and output at a high level but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error cases. With output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to detail them, but it should address usage and behavioral aspects more thoroughly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role: 'user_google_email' as 'The user's Google email address. Required,' 'form_id' as 'The ID of the form,' 'page_size' as 'Maximum number of responses to return. Defaults to 10,' and 'page_token' as 'Token for retrieving next page of results.' This clarifies beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't provide format details (e.g., email validation, form ID structure) or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level.

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's purpose: 'List a form's responses.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('form's responses'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_form_response' or 'get_form', which might retrieve individual responses or form metadata, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_form_response' (which might retrieve a single response) or 'get_form' (which might retrieve form details), leaving the agent to guess based on context. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage advice.

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