insync_list_surveys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the fact that only sent surveys are listed and what identifying fields come back, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or latency — notable gaps for a listing tool with no output schema.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields attached rather than relegated to a separate clause. No filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it establishes scope and return content. It stops just short of complete because it omits any indication of result volume/pagination or whether filters exist.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'view' parameter is documented at length in the schema (compact vs full, including the note that there is no 'raw'). The description adds nothing about 'view', so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 (list) and a well-scoped resource (patient satisfaction / outcome surveys the practice has sent), and even names the fields returned (survey name and received date). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, though the resource is distinct enough from insync_list_forms or insync_list_documents that an agent can route correctly.

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 practice has sent" implies scope (outbound surveys rather than received ones), which is a useful usage signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no naming of alternatives such as insync_list_forms, and no statement of when the tool should not be used.

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