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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds the 100-question cap and clarifies the non-capabilities, but does not describe side effects, persistence, or reuse of the idempotency key beyond what annotations carry.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The negative-boundary sentence is somewhat terse, but every clause carries routing value.

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 create tool with a nested object schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and boundaries but omits prerequisites (e.g., valid projectId source) and what is returned. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 67%; projectId and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema while the nested questionnaire object is not. The description's 'up to 100 client-supplied questions' loosely maps to the maxItems constraint but adds no field-level meaning, so 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 (Create) and resource (up to 100 client-supplied questions for a dossier), and adds negative boundaries that distinguish it from siblings like answer_questionnaire and import-type tools. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

The second sentence provides explicit when-not guidance ('Does not import a workbook, attest signatures, or approve answers'), which routes the agent away from adjacent tools. It stops short of naming the alternatives that would handle those cases or stating a positive 'use this when' condition, so it is not a full 5.

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