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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the 'mark as tested' side effect and the prerequisite relationship, but does not detail what 'mark as tested' entails or the response structure. It does not contradict annotations, but leaves some behavioral context unstated.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a crucial workflow requirement. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete: it states the purpose, the prerequisite, and the intended use of the result. It implies the response contains a test_url. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return format, but this does not hinder correct invocation.

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's parameter description is already informative, referencing list_surveys and create tools. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'respondent-view preview link for a survey', plus the side effect 'mark it as tested'. It distinguishes from launch_survey by noting that launch requires this step, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states 'Launch REQUIRES this step', providing a clear condition for when to use this tool. It also instructs to 'share the test_url with the user', telling the agent what to do with the result. This is strong usage guidance.

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