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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description reveals a significant hidden behavior: it reserves the full project value as a wallet hold and charges only for accepted completes at close. This financial side effect and the sample-supplier attachment are not inferable from the schema or hints, adding real decision-relevant context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core effect, the financial terms, and the prerequisites/confirmation rule. The most important action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating 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?

The definition covers the action, prerequisites, financial consequences, and user-confirmation requirement, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the success response or error conditions, but there is no output schema and those are secondary for a launch action with such detailed prerequisites.

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%, and the schema already documents survey_id with a clear pointer to list_surveys and create-tool return values. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 action ('Take a draft live') with a clear resource (the survey) and detailed effects: publishing the survey, attaching sample suppliers, and reserving wallet funds. This distinguishes it from related siblings like preview_survey, close_survey, and pause_survey by making the 'go live' intent unmistakable.

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 gives explicit prerequisites (≥1 question, preview_survey done, sufficient balance) and a mandatory confirmation step ('ALWAYS confirm with the user before launching'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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