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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' clause is largely redundant. However, 'no signature' adds genuine auth context (no signing required) beyond the annotations, and the return content is disclosed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the resource and return contents front-loaded and the optional parameter note last. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned and confirming the safety/auth profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents `caller` as an optional SS58 address. The description adds meaning by explaining it selects 'the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)', a rationale the schema does not convey.

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 (list) and resource (open surveys) and enumerates what is included (questions, payout per response, remaining capacity). This clearly separates it from siblings like geode_surveys_get_my_surveys and geode_surveys_get_survey_responses, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes it evident you call this to browse surveys available to take, but it never states when to prefer it over geode_surveys_get_my_surveys or get_survey_by_id, nor any preconditions.

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