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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying that data is limited to 'accepted completes' and that open-text answers are capped at 200 per question, which meaningfully constrains expectations. It does not describe the return format, but with strong annotations the burden on the description is lowered.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently enumerates the specific result types. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to know what data will be returned and its limitations. Minor missing details like exact response formatting or pagination are not critical for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, survey_id, is already well documented with a clear description and reference to related tools. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, that is acceptable.

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 resource and scope: 'Per-question aggregates over accepted completes' with counts, percentages, age buckets, and open-text answers. This is clearly more specific than the generic title 'Get results' and distinguishes it from related reporting tools like get_crosstab or get_insights_report, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when the agent needs per-question aggregate statistics, especially counts and percentages for choice questions and limited open-text answers. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as export_results_csv, get_crosstab, or get_insights_report, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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