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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), lowering the burden. The description adds that the question ref must be exact, which hints at matching behavior, but says nothing about pagination (limit default 30, max 50) or how filter interacts with the base query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operative scope ('exact ref') comes early. Slightly terse given the ambiguity of 'market-research question' against the sibling tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 4-param tool with 25% schema coverage and a confusingly similar sibling, the description omits pagination semantics and tool-selection guidance, leaving it only minimally 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 only 25% (only filter is documented), so the description should compensate more. 'Using its exact ref' does add meaning beyond the schema's bare minLength=1 for questionId by implying exact-match lookup, but testId and limit remain unexplained in both places.

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 (Read) and resource (participant responses for a market-research question), which an agent can act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling get_test_question_responses, nor clarify the 'market-research question' vs 'test question' scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With a sibling like get_test_question_responses in the same family, the absence of routing guidance is a clear gap.

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