list_statistics_questionnaires

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and scope; it does not say what 'options' contains (IDs, titles, versions?), whether results depend on the configured profile, whether the operation is read-only, or how empty results behave. The verb 'List' implies non-destructive, but nothing confirms it.

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?

A single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler or repetition of structured data. Structurally efficient for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Despite low complexity (one optional parameter), the description is incomplete for the confusing sibling context. With zero annotations and no output schema, an agent needs at least a hint about what the returned 'options' look like and how this differs from list_statistics_questions / list_questionnaires; neither is addressed.

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 100% — the single optional 'profile' parameter is already documented as 'Optional configured Survey Solutions profile name.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 since the schema fully carries the weight.

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 ('List') and resource ('questionnaire options'), scoped by 'available to Survey Solutions statistics reporting,' which implicitly distinguishes it from the plain list_questionnaires sibling. However, the distinction is implicit rather than explicit, and it does nothing to disambiguate from the similarly named list_statistics_questions.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternatives. In a sibling set containing list_questionnaires, list_statistics_questions, and get_statistics_report, an agent receives no help choosing among them based on this description.

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