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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses an authorization requirement (owner-only), the response numbering convention (from 1), the half-open return window (from..to-1), and a per-call cap of 100. This is meaningful behavioral context; the only tension is the '100 per call' range cap versus the schema's limit max of 200, which stay distinct but could confuse.

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 core action and scoping constraint, and mostly tight. Minor redundancy: caller is explained twice ('pass caller = the owner' and 'Optional caller: the account whose view to read'), and 'Read-only; no signature' echoes the annotations.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key mechanics: auth requirement, numbering, range semantics, and pagination. It stops short of describing the shape of a returned response, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that caller is the account/owner whose view is read and that from/to numbers are half-open (from..to-1). It also restates the offset/limit pagination defaults, which the schema already documents.

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 (Get) and resource (responses to a 5-question survey), and the '5-question' qualifier implicitly separates it from sibling tools get_survey_responses_1/_3. An agent can tell it apart from get_survey_by_id or get_my_surveys without opening a 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?

It establishes a precondition ('Only the owner can read them: pass caller = the owner'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over the _1/_3 variants or other survey readers, so the when-to-use routing is only implied by the size qualifier.

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