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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the legacy-test behavior (returning existing post-test questions) and the default-inference note, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the targeting instructions. The legacy-test note is stated twice in slightly different words ('Legacy tests return their existing post-test questions' / 'Legacy tests also supported'), which is mild redundancy.

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 not be re-explained (and the description's field list is somewhat redundant with it). However, two of three parameters remain undescribed, and the description is thin on how runId interacts with blockId for non-legacy tests.

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 33% (blockId documented, testId/runId bare), so the description must compensate. It implies the block/run targeting relationship but never explains the required testId's role, and 'the documented defaults' is circular rather than informative.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List questions in one Survey block') and enumerates the returned fields (refs, types, response counts, tester names), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also implicitly positions itself against list_test_blocks as the ID source, though it does not sharply contrast the two list tools.

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 states a clear prerequisite workflow ('Use IDs from list_test_blocks to target a block/run') and covers the omission case ('omission uses the documented defaults', 'Legacy tests also supported'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative for retrieving individual question responses, so it stops short of a 5.

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