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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral consequence: 'They won't be asked again this session.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the scope of the skip. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It provides the essential condition and the behavioral outcome without any fluff. Every word adds 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 parameterless tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers when to use and what happens. It lacks nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The session-scoped behavior is explicitly 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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. With schema coverage at 100% (empty schema), there is nothing missing. Baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 clearly states the action (skips a survey) and specifies the target (the short in-product survey Local MCP showed the user). It distinguishes itself from the sibling survey_respond by implying the user is declining to answer now. The verb 'skip' is specific and unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states when to use: 'use this when the user doesn't want to answer right now.' It does not explicitly name the alternative (survey_respond) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the condition is clear and the sibling list implies the alternative.

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