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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context about which statuses are included and the data fields returned, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or any operational constraints beyond the 15% rejection cap.

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, compact sentence front-loads the core purpose and captures the complete return set without filler. Every phrase contributes information.

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 single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys the essential output contents and scope. It omits minor details such as pagination or ordering, but nothing critical is missing for invoking 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?

The schema fully documents survey_id with cross-references to list_surveys and create tools, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds context by clarifying the tool scope ('Every complete'), but no additional parameter meaning is necessary.

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 names the resource ('complete') and the action ('list'), and enumerates what is included: accepted/rejected statuses, timestamps, duration, rate, counts, target, and rejection cap. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_complete_answers, so differentiation relies on content cues rather than an explicit statement.

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 intended use is implied by the survey_id parameter and the phrase 'Every complete...' – this is the tool for a survey-wide completion overview. However, it does not state when to use it over get_complete_answers, get_results, or set_target_completes, nor does it provide exclusions.

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