List exports of a survey

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result is metadata only and the server never downloads files, plus the possible status values (queued, completed, errored). It does not address pagination/rate-limit behavior, but on top of the annotations this is solid added 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the payload contents front-loaded and the scope-limiting caveat placed last where it reads as a constraint rather than a preamble.

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-shape burden and does so by listing the fields and status values. Safety is already covered by readOnlyHint, but a brief note on pagination (since page and max_results exist) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 75% - page, sort_by and survey_id are described in the schema, while max_results carries no description. The description adds nothing about pagination, sorting or result limiting. With the schema doing most of the work, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (exports/reports of one survey) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: name, type, status, file size/type, dates and download URL. That is far more specific than the tautological title, and it clearly separates this from survey-level siblings like get_survey. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling tools, which is why it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 resource scope (list exports for a given survey), and the closing clause sets an important boundary: metadata only, no downloads. However, it never says when to use this versus alternatives, nor states any prerequisite such as needing a survey_id from list_surveys. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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