CSAT Survey Page: Get CSAT survey page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the page is 'hosted' and that text values pass through unchanged and may use Persian/Arabic-Indic digits, which is genuinely useful input-handling context. It does not describe the returned survey structure or any failure modes.

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 core purpose and endpoint are front-loaded in one sentence, which is efficient. The appended language/digit note is short but reads as boilerplate that is loosely related to the tool's actual purpose, slightly diluting focus.

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 simple read-only GET with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what is fetched and where. However, it says nothing about what the returned survey page contains (questions, scores, response state), which an agent would need to interpret the result.

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%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The uuid of the conversation'. The description only restates this via the URL template ('/survey/responses/{conversation_uuid}'), adding no syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the hosted CSAT survey page for a conversation') plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not need to distinguish itself from a close sibling, since no other CSAT tool exists in the sibling list, but it also makes no explicit differentiation statement.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the conversation must be closed to have a survey). Usage is only implicit in 'for a conversation'. The trailing note about Persian digits is an input-format remark, not when-to-use guidance.

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