surveymonkey_list_pages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It uses a clearly read-only verb, 'Lists', and documents pagination parameters, which partially conveys behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, mention auth requirements, or describe error behavior, so behavioral transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 paginated list operation, the description plus input schema and output schema provide enough information to invoke the tool correctly with survey_id and optional pagination. The main missing context is explicit guidance about choosing it over sibling page-related tools, but that is a moderate gap given the clear purpose statement.

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 schema has no descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: survey_id is the survey identifier, page is the page number, and per_page is the results-per-page count. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, especially for per_page.

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 'Lists the pages of a survey', which is a specific verb plus resource and clearly distinguishes this from singular get_page operations or question/response listers. The plural 'pages' and mention of 'survey' make the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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 alternatives such as surveymonkey_get_page or surveymonkey_list_questions. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a recommended path for single-page retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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