survey_agent_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'No native open-in-chat widget' which is an important limitation, but overall it lacks details about side effects, required permissions, or what happens during execution. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very short (two fragments), but it fails to provide necessary information. This is underspecification rather than conciseness, though the structure is not padded with unnecessary text.

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 that there is an output schema but no parameter descriptions, the tool lacks essential clarity. The description does not explain return values or the tool's core purpose, making it inadequate for correct selection and invocation, especially among many sibling tools.

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 no description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must add meaning, but it does not explain what 'survey_id' represents or how it should be used. The cryptic reference to 'form_url + chat_text' does not clarify the parameter.

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 is ambiguous: 'form_url + chat_text for workers_chat_send / readyreply' suggests some combination of a form URL and chat text, but it's not clear what action the tool performs. It does not clearly state a verb and resource, and the tool name 'survey_agent_share' implies sharing, but the description does not confirm this.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions is provided, and the sibling tools include many survey and chat-related tools without any differentiation.

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