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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the response is an embedded .xlsx base64 blob and includes per-complete labels, stored answer codes, and a code-to-label codebook. No contradiction with annotations.

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 focused sentences front-load the core deliverable and sheet contents, then add the encoding detail. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary context.

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 single-parameter, read-only export tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: which completes are included, the workbook's sheet structure, and the base64 .xlsx return format. It omits guidance about how this relates to the CSV export, but that is a selection concern rather than a blocking gap for calling the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, survey_id, is fully described in the schema with a pointer to list_surveys and create tools, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so the schema-only baseline applies.

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 states a specific deliverable: an Excel workbook containing 'Responses', 'Codes', and 'Codebook' sheets, returned as a base64 .xlsx blob. This clearly distinguishes it from export_results_csv by format and content, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over export_results_csv, get_results, or get_complete_answers. The only implied usage signal is the Excel/codebook format, which is not enough to steer an agent's selection.

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