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

The annotations already communicate read-only and idempotent/non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds an important behavioral boundary—listing summaries by default versus paging through questions/answers for one questionnaire—but does not clarify return shape or pagination details beyond that.

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?

The description is short and direct, front-loading the main behavior before adding an instruction about IDs. The second sentence adds useful usage detail, so neither sentence is wasted, though it does underspecify a few things noted above.

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 simple read/list tool with strong annotations and a straightforward schema, this is minimally sufficient but not complete. It omits details on pagination behavior, required parameter meaning, and output contents, which is noticeable because 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does by explaining the 'page through' mode and the need to use stored questionnaire/question IDs. However, it does not explicitly clarify how limit/offset relate to paging or how questionnaireId selects the detailed view.

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?

The description names the core actions ('List questionnaire summaries, or page through one questionnaire's questions and answers') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like helvabase_create_questionnaire and helvabase_answer_questionnaire, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, or when not to use it. The instruction to 'Use stored questionnaire and question IDs when answering' is about ID provenance, not tool selection or usage context.

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