survey_solutions_orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool is explanatory and safety-oriented, but it does not disclose what the output format will be, whether any state is read, or how the detail_level parameter affects the response. For a non-mutating tool the gap is less severe, but still incomplete.

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 a single sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and then provides a useful, compact list of covered topics. Every part 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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description gives no guidance on how to select detail_level or whether to request examples. It adequately explains the overall purpose but omits enough operational detail for an agent to make fully informed invocation choices.

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%, and the description does not mention detail_level or include_examples at all. The parameter names and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any additional meaning or usage guidance, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource ('Survey Solutions concepts and safe MCP usage') and enumerates the exact topics covered. This makes it easily distinguishable from the many operational sibling tools that perform actions rather than provide orientation.

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 context of when to use this tool is implied: it is for understanding concepts and safe usage rather than performing operations. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related explanatory siblings like describe_permission_modes, get_api_capabilities, or explain_blocked_tool, nor does it provide exclusions.

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