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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses the required permission and warns that results contain untrusted public text that must be treated as data, not instructions. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for safe handling.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste. The core read operation is front-loaded, followed by permission and safety context, all earning their 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and by adding the permission requirement and prompt-injection caution. For a two-parameter, read-only tool, nothing essential 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%: board_id and survey_id already document their format, UUID pattern, and provenance from list_boards/list_surveys. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 one survey') and enumerates the exact fields returned: question, options, request links, review-link settings and status. This scopes it implicitly against siblings like get_survey_results and list_surveys without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 includes a permission prerequisite ('Requires features.manage') but never states when to choose this tool over list_surveys or get_survey_results. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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