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

Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), leaving the description to carry the behavioral load. It discloses the operation: cloning, machine-translation, optional re-targeting, limit of 10 languages, and returning new survey IDs. However, it does not explicitly state that the original survey is left unchanged (though 'clone' implies it) or mention any other side effects like cost or permission requirements, which would enhance transparency.

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 pack the core action, optional behavior, constraint, and return value, all front-loaded in active voice with zero filler. Every phrase 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately includes the return value ('returns the new survey ids'). It also covers the key preconditions (which survey, which languages, optional country) and the 10-language cap. Minor gaps—like error behavior or handling of invalid language codes—are not critical given the schema already covers input format.

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%: both survey_id and languages are fully documented, including the nested object/string variants and the 10-item limit. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific action ('Clone a survey once per language and machine-translate') with a clear resource (survey) and explicitly differentiates from simple cloning by focusing on translation. It also specifies the per-language behavior and return value, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need machine-translated survey clones in multiple languages) and provides context (up to 10 languages, optional country re-targeting). It does not name alternatives like clone_survey or state explicit exclusions, but the translation angle makes the use case evident.

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