List surveys

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

Annotations only cover read-only/open-world. The description adds real behavioral facts: titles are returned in API order, whole API pages of min(100, max_results) are returned so the row count can be lower than max_results, a continuation note is provided, and contact details are redacted unless opted in. That is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent cannot infer.

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 returned fields and then the pagination caveat; no filler. Slightly packed, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields and explaining pagination and redaction. The only gap is sorting semantics, though the schema itself admits accepted property names are undocumented, so little more could be said.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by clarifying the interaction between max_results and page size ('whole API pages of min(100, max_results)'), which explains why fewer rows than max_results may arrive, and by restating the redaction effect of include_contact_details in the retrieval context.

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 the resource (surveys on this account), the scope of the list, and exactly which fields come back (title, nickname, status, response count, dates). It is clear and specific, but it never names a sibling (e.g. get_survey for a single survey) to differentiate itself 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_survey, list_responses, or the folder-listing tools. The only quasi-usage remark is the pagination hint ('the note says how to continue'), which explains continuation rather than tool selection.

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