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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful domain-specific context beyond annotations, such as the locked flag meaning standard demographics can't be edited and the editable count cap of 75. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core subject ('The questionnaire') is front-loaded. It is somewhat run-on due to the long enumeration of fields, but every item contributes information about what the tool returns.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough inventory of the returned question attributes. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but the low complexity and strong annotation coverage make the definition sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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%: the single survey_id parameter is documented with a clear explanation and cross-reference to list_surveys and create tools. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema fully carries that 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 clearly identifies the resource ('questionnaire') and the action (listing every question) and enumerates the fields returned, making the tool's purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling listing tools like list_surveys or list_quotas, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and there is no mention of exclusions or complementary tools. The schema's parameter description references list_surveys, but the tool description itself does not provide usage context, so the agent is left to infer when list_questions is appropriate.

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