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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns reference data (code + name, languages, categories, currency) and its role as a pre-check. It doesn't describe pagination or size limits, but given the trivial nature (no parameters), this is sufficient.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and lists contents; the second gives a clear usage directive. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. It tells an agent exactly what data is returned, when to use it, and how it fits into the survey-creation workflow. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by detailing the exact content of the returned lists (country code+name, languages, categories, currency), which helps an agent understand what to expect even without an output schema.

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 tool's purpose: providing reference lists for creating a survey, specifically naming the resources (countries, languages, categories, wallet currency) and their purpose (picking valid values for create_survey). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique role as a look-up utility for survey creation parameters.

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 instructs to call this tool before create_survey to select valid country_code and category values. It gives clear timing and context, and implicitly states when not needed (when creating surveys without these parameters). No alternative tool is mentioned, but none exists for this purpose.

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