list_records

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false are already annotated, the description adds useful behavioral context: records are returned newest first, email/phone values inside answers are masked, and respondents must be referenced by examineeId rather than masked email. These are non-obvious behaviors not present in 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?

Four purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. Each sentence adds value: scope/ordering, item composition, filters, masking warning, and routing to get_record.

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?

The input schema covers pagination and filtering, the output schema covers the item shape, and the description adds scope, ordering, masking, and an explicit alternative for full-record retrieval. Nothing needed 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description only paraphrases the existing filter parameters ('form, report status, and submitted-at range') without adding new syntax or format details. The schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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-resource pair ('List submission records (leads)'), defines scope ('current team'), ordering ('newest first'), and names the included fields, including compact report results, UTM metadata, and examinee info. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_record for full detail, distinguishing it from the closest sibling.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when listing or filtering submission records, and explicitly directs the agent to get_record when one record's full detail is needed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_leads, leaving a possible ambiguity without an exclusion.

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