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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the manage permission requirement, pagination behavior ('Follow next_cursor; pages are live'), and a prompt-injection warning about public member text. This is meaningfully more than the annotations provide.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the permission, pagination, and safety notes. Every sentence carries information; only 'pages are live' is slightly ambiguous phrasing.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, permission requirement, pagination, and a data-safety caveat. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it, how to page it, and how to treat the returned content.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, board_id and cursor are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces cursor usage ('Follow next_cursor'). The status enum is only obliquely referenced via 'including closed ones', and the limit parameter is unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a gap the description does not close.

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 ('List this board's existing rating surveys and polls') and clarifies scope by noting closed ones are included. It is clearly distinguishable from get_survey / get_survey_results, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires features.manage') and a scope hint ('including closed ones'), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_survey or get_survey_results, and there are no explicit exclusions, so usage is left largely to inference.

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