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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits beyond that: counts are DISTINCT contacts, results are computed on demand, and the window defaults to the last 30 days unless days is passed. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits for large surveys, which is the remaining behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the mode split, and every sentence carries information — the dropoff-rate contrast justifies the tool's place rather than padding. It is on the long side (roughly seven sentences) and the mode descriptions could be tightened, but nothing is redundant with structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden: it describes the return shape in both modes (per-survey reach/answered counts and response rate, versus per-question option shares and verbatim answers). Combined with the default window, distinct-count semantics, and the schema's documented error for invalid flowId, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the behavioral fork of flowId ('Called with NO flowId it lists every survey flow... with a flowId it returns that survey per question') and the days default. splitGoalKey is left entirely to the schema, which documents it well, so the description does not add there.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read what customers ANSWERED... in surveys') and defines the resource precisely ('any flow marked isSurvey'). It also distinguishes the two operating modes (no flowId = listing, with flowId = per-question detail), which no sibling tool does, so an agent can separate it from get_flow_analytics or get_funnel_analytics.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool is the right evidence source, contrasting it explicitly with dropoff rate: 'far stronger than a dropoff rate, which only shows where people stopped and never why.' It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use instead when dropoff data is what's wanted, so there is no explicit exclusion or routing statement.

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