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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, it discloses that features.manage is required even for read-only connections, that visitor hashes and tokens are never returned, that answers can change between pages, and that respondent names/emails are unverified. It also flags public-authored text and warns to treat it as data, not instructions—genuinely valuable behavioral context for a safe read.

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?

Though dense, every sentence carries an independent, decision-relevant fact: purpose, pagination rule, identity caveat, cross-page volatility, permission requirement, and a prompt-injection warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes nothing.

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 explains the return shape (answer counts plus a page of responses, next_cursor, exclusion of hashes/tokens), pagination semantics, permission needs, and safety considerations. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the cursor's 'use previous next_cursor unchanged' semantics. The description reinforces the cursor rule but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema for board_id, survey_id, or limit, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read complete current answer counts plus a page of this survey's responses'), clearly conveying that it returns both aggregate counts and a page of individual responses. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_survey, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the scope is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

It supplies operational usage guidance ('Follow next_cursor unchanged for all responses') but gives no when-to-use/when-not comparison against siblings like get_survey or export_knowledge_page. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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