safe_mind_get_survey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the operation read-only, documents the not-found error for nonexistent or cross-company ids, states the tenancy scope ('acts on the company of the account behind the key'), and covers authentication. This is the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the returned-field list, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It runs long as a single dense paragraph of clauses, but nearly every clause (routing, auth, error, tenancy) 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the returned fields, safety profile, error behavior, auth requirement, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single surveyId parameter is already documented in the schema as a UUID sourced from list/create tools. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail for the parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Show one survey of the company') and enumerates exactly what is returned (title, status, dates, participant limit, anonymity threshold, participation and edit links). It is unmistakably distinct from safe_mind_list_surveys and safe_mind_get_analytics, which it names.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('check a single survey or fetch its links') and routes the agent to the correct alternatives for other intents ('for an overview of all surveys use safe_mind_list_surveys, for results use safe_mind_get_analytics'). It also states the prerequisite (API key via env var or safe_mind_get_api_key).

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