list_surveys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by mentioning the 404 error case and specifying output fields (status, url), but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a brief usage paragraph, an error note, and an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, earning a high conciseness score despite missing one parameter explanation.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the return structure (JSON with total_items and surveys arrays) and typical fields (id, title, status, url, timestamps). It also ties list_id to list_audiences. While pagination and empty result behavior are not addressed, the combination of description and output schema provides sufficient completeness for this tool's complexity.

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 schema has two parameters (list_id and account) with 0% coeverage. The description only explains list_id ('Audience/list ID (from list_audiences)') and omits account entirely. This incomplete explanation fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning partially undefined.

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 'List all surveys for an audience with their status and public URL,' specifying the action (list), resource (surveys), and scope (for an audience). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_survey (for full detail) and publish/unpublish_survey (for changing live state), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'to discover survey_id values and see which surveys are live' and directs users to get_survey for full detail and publish/unpublish for state changes. It also mentions the 404 error for invalid list_id. However, it does not explicitly list all circumstances where this tool would be inappropriate relative to other siblings, slightly reducing guidance completeness.

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