surveymonkey_get_response_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool returns response answer data and that the simple parameter 'returns simplified answer format,' which discloses core behavior. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or any other operational traits, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a terse, readable Args block. Every line adds useful information, there is no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides complete parameter semantics and basic behavior, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main contextual gap is the lack of guidance on how this tool relates to the similarly named surveymonkey_get_response sibling.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: survey_id, response_id, page_ids, question_ids, and simple. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles, including filter defaults and the effect of the simple flag.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Returns a specific response with all answer data.' This identifies what the tool does and the data scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling surveymonkey_get_response, so it falls just short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like surveymonkey_get_response, surveymonkey_list_responses_bulk, or surveymonkey_export_responses_csv. The description only states what the tool does and lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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