survey_agent_responses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any traits: no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm safety or disclose any behavioral constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with one parameter. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices some clarity and completeness, though it does not contain wasted words.

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 has an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool is part of a large survey family and the description lacks any contextual cues about scope, data volume, or relation to sibling tools. It is minimally complete for a simple fetch operation but would benefit from a note on the nature of 'respondent answers' or typical usage.

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 input schema has one required parameter (survey_id) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention survey_id or provide any semantics (e.g., format, example, source). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to add value beyond the parameter name.

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 'Fetch respondent answers for a survey.' uses a clear verb ('Fetch') and specifies the resource ('respondent answers for a survey'). Among sibling tools like survey_agent_get (gets survey details) and survey_agent_list_forms (lists forms), this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous. However, it could be more precise by indicating whether it retrieves all answers or filtered ones.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as survey_agent_get, survey_agent_list_forms, or survey_agent_scenarios_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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