export_survey_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses error conditions and the requirement for surveys to be enabled, but does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects (e.g., creating a participant). This is a notable gap.

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 structured into clear sections (Overview, Prerequisite, Args, Returns) with no filler. It efficiently conveys all necessary information in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and a schema that lacks descriptions, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return type, and error conditions. The only missing piece is a clear statement about side effects or permissions, but overall it is highly complete.

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 Args section provides a meaningful one-line description for each parameter, including 'Event name (longitudinal projects only)' and 'Repeat instance number (default 1)'. This compensates fully for the absent 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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Get a unique survey link for a participant to complete an instrument', clearly identifying the tool's function and distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_survey_participant_list. It also mentions the prerequisite and error conditions, reinforcing the tool's purpose.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite ('instrument must be enabled as a survey') and describes error conditions when usage fails. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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