surveymonkey_export_responses_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: automatic pagination, the 10,000-response cap, CSV output with headers, and optional date/status filters. This goes well beyond a bare mutation or read statement, though it could mention error behavior or what happens if more than 10,000 responses exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: main purpose first, then pagination behavior, then parameter documentation, then return format. Every line earns its place, and the Args/Returns format makes it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 parameter count, lack of annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough enough. It documents all four parameters, explains the automatic pagination, sets the response limit expectation, and specifies the CSV return format with headers. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Each parameter is explained with useful semantics: survey_id is the survey identifier, start/end dates are ISO 8601 filters, and status is a filter with examples such as 'completed' and 'partial'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property titles.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Exports all responses for a survey as CSV.' It clearly states the output format and that all answers are included, distinguishing it from sibling tools like surveymonkey_list_responses or surveymonkey_get_response, which are focused on reading response data in a different form.

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?

The description implies usage for CSV export of all survey responses and mentions automatic pagination, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as surveymonkey_list_responses_bulk or surveymonkey_get_response, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions.

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