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

Annotations cover read-only/safety, and the description adds substantial context on top: the empty-result semantics for closed, unfunded, full, or unknown surveys, plus the note that results are caller-dependent. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know to interpret a blank response correctly.

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 purpose, then conditions, then read-only status. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical id sources are useful rather than filler. Slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden, naming the payload (questions, payout per response, remaining capacity) and the empty-result case. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains where survey_id comes from and that `caller` selects whose view results are computed against (caller-dependent results), which the terse schema field 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+resource ('look up one survey by its survey_id') and immediately distinguishes itself from the list siblings it draws ids from (get_available_surveys, get_my_surveys). An agent can tell this is a single-item fetch, not a listing.

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?

Explains the precondition for use (you need a survey_id obtained from the sibling list tools or a shared link) and the outcome conditions. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing statement, but the sourcing context is clear.

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