List Surveys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent and adds no contradiction. It adds the scoping detail 'for a location,' but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, response format, or the optionality of locationId. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no wasted words. It is concise without being under-specified, unlike a pure tautology like 'Process.'

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain the return structure or the effect of omitting locationId, and the optionality is ambiguous. Annotations compensate for the read-only safety, but more details on parameters and response would improve completeness.

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 has one parameter (locationId) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'for a location' suggests the role of locationId but does not explicitly name it, nor does it clarify that locationId is optional per schema or what happens if omitted. This is partial compensation but leaves ambiguity.

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 'Get all surveys for a location' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('surveys'), with a clear scope ('for a location'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like ghl_list_pipelines or ghl_list_campaigns, and is not a tautology of the title 'List Surveys'.

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 description implies usage (list surveys for a location) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or comparisons to similar list tools, such as 'use this when you need survey data, not pipeline data.'

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