list_surveys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds a meaningful capability boundary beyond them — that the server cannot answer/submit surveys, only enumerate them. That is exactly the kind of constraint annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the limitation second. The phrasing 'read-only coverage only' is slightly redundant, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With one fully-described parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps (pagination or ordering behavior for multi-course results) are not addressed but are not critical here.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including that it accepts one or more ids. The description's phrase 'one or more courses' merely restates this, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Survey activities') plus the scope ('across one or more courses'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many other list_* siblings. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 when-not: survey answering/submission is not supported, so the agent knows not to attempt that here. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for survey responses (none appears in the sibling list, so this is a reasonable omission).

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