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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: auto-derived age/gender cells are marked is_auto, only their limit can change, and their ids are regenerated on every call. The warning to always use ids from the latest response is critical and highly transparent.

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 tight sentences: the first states the resource and returned fields, the second states a non-obvious id-freshness rule. There is no filler and the critical behavioral warning 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the main returned components (limit, filled, remaining, conditions/members, questions/answers) and the special is_auto behavior with id regeneration. This is enough for an agent to understand what it will receive and how to use the ids safely, leaving no obvious gaps for a list operation.

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 only parameter, survey_id, is fully documented in the schema with guidance on how to obtain it, so the description carries no extra parameter burden. The phrase 'of a survey' adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource as 'quota cells of a survey' and enumerates the returned data: limit, filled, remaining, conditions/members, and questions/answers a quota can be placed on. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling quota operations like create_quota, update_quota, and delete_quota, which are different verbs/resource intents.

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?

No explicit alternatives or when-to-use guidance is provided; usage is implied by the 'list' verb and the resource description. It does not state exclusions or contrast with related quota tools such as update_quota, so an agent must infer when this is the right call.

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