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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not restate mutation or idempotency. It adds valuable context: that the tool recomputes LOI from the question count and re-prices against targeting, which clarifies the side effects beyond a generic 'update'. 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the usage condition ('Call after editing questions') and then lists the concrete actions. No filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys all essential information in minimal space.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and effects for a simple action. It omits what the return value looks like, but for an idempotent, non-destructive recalculation tool, this is a minor gap. The one-parameter schema and annotations cover the operational context well.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter survey_id, including guidance to use list_surveys or a create tool. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The parameter is well-documented in the schema itself, so no further explanation is needed.

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 verb ('recomputes', 're-prices') and the resource (the survey), and specifies the exact outputs (LOI, CPI, total, feasibility). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price_quote (which is read-only) by framing it as an action taken after editing questions. The purpose is 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 tells the agent when to call this tool: 'Call after editing questions'. This provides clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'after editing' condition implicitly sets it apart from read-only pricing tools. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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