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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output contains 'full question-by-question answers', which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors like error conditions, pagination, or response format. Given strong annotations, the added value is modest.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Full question-by-question answers') and includes the essential context (location_id from list_completes). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It explains the input source and the nature of the output. It does not mention potential errors or limitations (e.g., whether the complete must be finished), but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description repeats the location_id source from list_completes but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description provides no additional semantic value, warranting the baseline score.

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 is specific: it states the tool retrieves full question-by-question answers for a single complete, identified by location_id. It clearly distinguishes this from aggregated tools like get_results or get_crosstab by emphasizing 'one complete' and 'question-by-question'. The reference to list_completes adds contextual grounding.

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?

It implies a workflow: first use list_completes to obtain a location_id, then call this tool. This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as get_results for aggregate data, so it stops short of full guidance.

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