get_survey_responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description mainly confirms it's a read operation. It adds that it retrieves 'individual responses submitted to the specified survey' but no further behavioral details like error handling or rate limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a paragraph on pagination, and formatted Args/Returns sections. It is concise without unnecessary detail, earning its place.

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?

The description includes pagination guidance and a return value specification, but the 'account' parameter is undocumented. An output schema exists, so return type is partially covered. Given the tool's complexity (4 params, one undocumented) and sibling tools, the description could be more complete by explaining the account parameter and possibly mentioning prerequisites or response structure hints.

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?

The description explains three out of four parameters (survey_id, count, offset) with clear meanings and defaults, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely, leaving it unexplained. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 that the tool lists responses for a single survey, using verbs 'List' and 'Retrieves'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_survey (survey details) and get_survey_response (single response) by specifying 'individual responses' and referencing the survey_id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_survey_reports, but the context is sufficient.

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 usage guidance by mentioning pagination with count and offset. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_survey_response or list_survey_reports, nor does it give criteria for choosing this tool.

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