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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: owner-only authorization, that no signature is required, and the response numbering scheme. It stops short of describing return format or rate behavior, but the added disclosure is genuinely useful.

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, then auth, then range/pagination semantics; every sentence contributes. Slight redundancy in covering `caller` twice (owner instruction plus optional-account note) is the only waste.

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 still covers auth requirements, the response-numbering convention, the 100-item cap, and pagination defaults/limits, which is enough for correct invocation. It could say more about the shape of a returned response, but the essential call-time details are present.

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 semantics the schema lacks: `caller` is framed as the account whose view produces caller-dependent results, and `from_response_number`/`to_response_number` are explained as a 1-based half-open range returning from..to-1 capped at 100 items.

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 ("Get responses to one of your 3-question surveys") and the "3-question" qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling responses_1 and responses_5 tools without opening any schema.

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 context that only the owner can read the responses and instructs to pass `caller` = the owner, which is actionable usage guidance. It does not explicitly name the 1-question or 5-question variants as alternatives, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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