Get one response

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

Annotations only say readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantive behavioral context: respondent identifiers are withheld and emails/phone numbers are redacted unless include_contact_details is set. It also discloses the conditional Organisation Hierarchy fields, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary return payload, then the privacy caveat. No filler, though the second sentence packs multiple conditions into one clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the returned compound structure and the redaction/identifier behavior. It does not need to describe pagination for a single-record fetch, so coverage is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns extra credit by explaining the effect of include_contact_details (unredacting contact data) and the label/translation payload it returns, adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a single response plus its pages, questions, answers, and conditional Organisation Hierarchy fields. 'One response' implicitly distinguishes it from list_responses, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the required survey_id/response_id pair and the singular framing versus list_responses, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to an alternative.

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