surveymonkey_list_surveys

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read-style listing operation, explains pagination behavior, sort defaults, and the per_page maximum of 1000. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, leaving some behavioral context unstated.

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-sentence purpose and followed by a compact Args block. Each parameter line is informative and scannable, with no filler, repetition of schema defaults, or unnecessary prose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is present and all 8 optional parameters are fully described, the description provides nearly complete invocation context. The remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on choosing sibling tools, no error/edge-case notes, and no authentication or rate-limit context. Still, an agent can call this tool correctly with confidence.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters. It adds semantic value beyond the schema: valid sort_by values, sort_order direction choices, title substring matching, ISO 8601 date formats, folder filtering, and default values. This is exactly the kind of parameter clarification an agent needs.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists surveys in the account with pagination and optional filters.' This clearly states what the tool does and its scope, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like surveymonkey_get_survey or surveymonkey_get_survey_details, which target a single survey.

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 makes the core use case obvious—listing surveys—and the parameter list shows how to filter, sort, and paginate. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or say when to prefer this over a sibling such as get_survey, get_survey_details, or list_responses. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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