get_form_responses

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: server-side auth injection, throttling under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retry on 429/5xx, pagination behavior, and non-2xx error mapping. It reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations.

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 organized into compact labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and front-loads the read-only endpoint and core purpose. Despite covering auth, errors, pagination, and usage, it remains dense rather than padded.

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 paginated read endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, ordering, pagination, auth, rate limiting, error semantics, and when to call it. The only details left to the input schema are parameter-level descriptions, which are already 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining how to use pagination parameters ('walk them with page and size each page with items_per_page') and noting the 20-per-page default. It does not add much about 'users' or 'id', but those are adequately defined in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get form responses' from /v2/forms/{id}/responses) and explains what it returns: all submitted responses, newest first, paginated. It also orients the agent against write siblings and related assessment tools, so it is easy to tell apart from the large sibling set.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting' and 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool' provide both positive and negative selection criteria. The related assessment tool names further steer the agent toward alternatives where appropriate.

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