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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts: the call needs no signature, and results can be caller-dependent. That is context annotations cannot express and it bears directly on invocation. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination.

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 compact segments, front-loaded with the operation, then the safety/signature fact, then the parameter note. Nothing redundant.

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 with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (surveys created by caller) and that no signature is needed. Adequate; only pagination/ordering behavior is unstated.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as an SS58 query-as address. The description's gloss ('the account whose view to read, for caller-dependent results') mostly restates that, adding only the hint that output varies by caller. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope: surveys the `caller` created. It is distinguishable from geode_surveys_get_available_surveys and get_survey_by_id, though it doesn't name those siblings to lock in the distinction. Clear, but not maximally differentiated.

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 implied - reading one's own created surveys - and the optional caller is framed as viewing as another account. No explicit when-to-use versus the other survey-listing siblings, no prerequisites, no exclusions.

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