forms_list_responses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists responses, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention that 'all' may be constrained by the max_results parameter or pagination behavior. No side effects or limitations are disclosed, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, succinct sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits the caveat that 'all' responses may not actually be returned due to max_results, and it provides no context about response ordering or format. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. While form_id and max_results are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, the description adds no semantic value, and the max_results default (50) and its role in limiting results are not explained.

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 'List all responses submitted to a Google Form' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('responses submitted to a Google Form'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like forms_read, which reads the form definition. It is unambiguous and purpose-oriented.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as forms_read for form structure. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage context entirely unspecified.

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