surveymonkey_get_survey_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the main trait—returning the full definition with pages and questions—but it does not mention read-only status, authorization, payload size, error behavior, or any operational caveats.

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 main purpose sentence is front-loaded and concise. The Args section is short but redundant with the schema, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so the return behavior is partly covered. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves an agent to infer when to call it and whether the 'full survey definition' behaves differently from related list/get endpoints.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description only repeats 'survey_id: Survey ID,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing property title. It does not explain where to find the ID, expected format, or how it is used.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('the full survey definition'), and explicitly notes that the definition includes all pages and questions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling page/question-level tools such as get_page and list_questions.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many sibling survey/page/question/collector tools. The description implies its purpose but does not state alternatives or exclusions.

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