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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: pagination behavior, ordering (newest surveys first), the exact fields returned (cited sources, keyword mentions, uncited_sources, searched), and performance guidance ('heavy, ask for it only when needed') for include_raw. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then dive into response fields and a parameter caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

The description covers the main aspects an agent needs: scope, ordering, pagination, response fields, and the heavy include_raw flag. With an output schema absent, it adequately explains return values. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits are not critical for a read-only, idempotent tool with well-documented schema parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance on include_raw ('heavy, ask for it only when needed') which affects parameter usage, and clarifies pagination/ordering that relates to page/per_page and survey filtering. This is a slight improvement over bare schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies what the tool returns: 'raw answers of ONE AI engine for a tracker' with a specific scope (single engine), ordering (newest surveys first), and pagination. It also lists the fields carried (cited sources, keyword mentions, uncited_sources, searched), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that likely aggregate or provide different views.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage via the specific phrasing ('raw answers of ONE AI engine'), which guides an agent to pick this when per-engine raw data is needed, but it lacks a clear exclusion clause or mention of alternative tools like get_results or get_source.

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