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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: create/update require admin keys while submit_response does not. It does not discuss reversibility of updates or failure behavior, but the auth disclosure is a real addition.

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 pairing the high-level purpose with a scannable action-by-action breakdown. Dense but every clause carries requirements; no filler.

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 9-parameter, 3-mode tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the action-mode routing is a solid foundation but the description omits the `description` parameter entirely and gives no guidance on the untyped `answer` payload. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It maps required/optional params per action (name/type, surveyId, name/status, questionId/answer, matchId), which is valuable, but leaves `answer` (untyped {}), `description`, and the meaning of the `type`/`status` enum values undocumented.

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 set (modify/create/update/submit responses) against a specific resource (surveys), and enumerates the three action modes inline. An agent can immediately tell this is the write-path counterpart to the read-only sibling surveys_query.

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?

Gives per-action usage conditions: which params each action requires and which actions are restricted to 'admin keys only'. It stops short of naming surveys_query as the read-only alternative or stating when-not to use this tool, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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