surveymonkey_list_responses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose a core behavioral trait: returns metadata only and excludes answer content. It also documents filter, sort, and pagination behavior. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable.

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 prose is minimal and front-loaded with purpose and the alternative tool, followed by a compact structured argument list. No redundant sentences or restatements of schema titles.

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 nine-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the parameter semantics, and the main sibling distinction. An output schema exists, so return-value shape does not need to be restated.

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 document the parameters itself. It explains every argument, adds constraints not present in the schema (max 1000, ISO 8601, allowed status values, sort field/order), and clarifies defaults.

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?

Description states the specific action (lists responses for a survey) and the key scope restriction (metadata only, no answers). It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling surveymonkey_list_responses_bulk, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides an explicit routing rule: use this tool for metadata-only response lists, and use surveymonkey_list_responses_bulk when answer data is needed. This is clear context for choosing among siblings.

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