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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't explain what resuming entails (e.g., making the survey active again for respondents). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds nothing extra. Given annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the action and the precondition. It is concise and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is fairly complete. It states the precondition (paused and previously launched) and the action. It could explicitly mention that resuming changes the survey state from paused to active, but that is implied by the verb 'resume.' Overall, it's adequate.

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 parameter has a descriptive description in the schema ('Survey id (see list_surveys, or the survey_id returned by a create tool)'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 action (resume) on a specific resource (a paused survey that was previously launched). It distinguishes from siblings like launch_survey and pause_survey by specifying the precondition (paused and previously launched). This is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 clear context by noting it applies to paused surveys that were previously launched, which implies when to use it (after a pause_survey call). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like launch_survey or close_survey, but the condition is sufficient for most agents to infer correct usage. A small gap: it doesn't mention that this is the counterpart to pause_survey, but the context is present.

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