surveymonkey_list_collector_recipients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a listing operation and exposes pagination parameters, but it does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or whether any recipient statuses or filters apply. The Args block mostly repeats schema titles and defaults rather than adding behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. No filler or redundant prose is present.

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?

For a simple three-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description gives the minimum needed to make a call: purpose and parameters. It is not complete enough to support nuanced tool selection or behavior expectations because it omits usage guidance and behavioral detail, but it is not inadequate for a straightforward invocation.

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 needed to compensate, but the Args entries simply restate the property names and defaults already in the schema ('Page number (default 1)', 'Results per page (default 50)', 'Collector ID'). It adds no constraints, value formats, or provenance guidance for collector_id.

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 opening line 'Lists email recipients for a collector' names a specific verb (lists), resource (email recipients), and scope (a collector). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_collectors and list_collector_messages, which operate on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a collector_id, and no exclusions or alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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