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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by calling it 'cheap' and a 'liveness snapshot,' which signals it is appropriate for repeated polling. It does not detail latency or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read operation.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the returned fields, and ends with routing guidance. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it lists the observed fields and the intended polling use case. With no output schema, type and format details for values like status or timestamps are unstated, but they are not needed to select or invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The only parameter, survey_id, is already well documented in the schema with guidance on where to find it; the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'a survey.'

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 concrete operation: returning a cheap liveness snapshot with status, is_live, completes, target, and latest complete time. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_results by framing this as the progress-watching endpoint.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to poll this instead of get_results to watch progress, naming the alternative and the specific use case. This gives clear selection guidance and avoids ambiguity with a sibling tool.

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