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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful dual-mode behavior (summary listing vs. per-questionnaire paging), which annotations do not convey. It does not describe pagination bounds or return shape.

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 short sentences, with the tool's action front-loaded before the operational hint. Nothing is padded, though the final 'when answering' clause is slightly cryptic and could be tightened.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the two modes adequately but omits pagination boundaries and what a returned summary/questions payload looks like. With no output schema to carry that burden, a modest gap remains.

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 only 25% – projectId carries a description while questionnaireId, limit, and offset do not. The description partially compensates by revealing that questionnaireId flips the tool into a paging mode and that limit/offset drive that paging, which is real semantic value the bare schema lacks. It still leaves the ID format and paging limits undocumented.

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 a specific verb/resource pair and actually covers two distinct modes: listing questionnaire summaries vs. paging through one questionnaire's questions and answers. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly states the switch condition (presence of questionnaireId) nor contrasts itself with create_questionnaire/answer_questionnaire siblings.

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 trailing sentence ('Use stored questionnaire and question IDs when answering') implies a context – retrieving IDs to feed downstream answering tools – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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