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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing participant scoping rules: participants see ACTIVE surveys regardless of the status filter, participants see only their own responses, and matchId filtering is rejected on anonymous surveys for non-participant callers. These are non-obvious authorization and result-set behaviors an agent must know.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and then structured by action with parenthetical qualifiers; every clause carries information. The single long sentence is dense but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what list vs get_results returns, but it covers actions, required/optional params, and the key permission-driven result behaviors. For a 5-param query tool with no annotations for safety semantics, this is close to 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 0%, so the description carries the load: it maps surveyId and matchId to the get_results action, indicates matchId is optional, and describes type/status as filters for list. It does not characterize the values expected for type/status or explain the matchId rejection logic beyond the anonymous-survey case, leaving minor gaps.

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 ('Query surveys') and immediately decomposes the two modes the tool supports via the action enum, so an agent can tell 'list' from 'get_results' without reading the schema. It does not explicitly name its write sibling surveys_manage, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 clear conditional guidance per action: 'list' takes optional type/status filters, 'get_results' requires surveyId and optionally matchId. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one (e.g., vs surveys_manage).

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