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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'takes no arguments, makes no network calls, stores nothing,' which is partly redundant with openWorldHint/readOnlyHint but usefully reassures the agent before it prompts a human for sensitive company data. It also previews the per-question fields, though the output schema already carries 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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a workflow clause; the scoping statement comes first and nothing is padding. The long parenthetical list of eight question topics is dense but earns its place by letting the agent preview the interview, though it makes the sentence harder to scan.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — what the tool is for, how it fits with draft_ai_use_policy, and that it is side-effect free — is all stated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description confirms it explicitly with 'Takes no arguments' rather than leaving the agent to infer it from an empty schema.

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 ('Returns the short questionnaire behind draft_ai_use_policy') and immediately enumerates the eight topics covered, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling draft_ai_use_policy, which consumes the answers rather than producing the questions.

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 an explicit ordered workflow: 'Call this first, ask the person the questions, then pass their answers to draft_ai_use_policy.' The alternative sibling is named and the condition selecting it is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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