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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the operational meaning (no new responses accepted) and pointing at the undo path, though it does not clarify whether existing responses are preserved or whether a second call errors despite idempotentHint=false.

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, zero filler, with the effect statement front-loaded ahead of the recovery pointer. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the two required params are fully covered by the schema. For a destructive state-change tool, the description could still say what state the survey lands in and whether existing responses survive, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only lightly adds meaning ('published survey' implies a state constraint on survey_id), which is enough for the baseline 3 but nothing more.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (close a published survey), scopes it to an event, and states the concrete effect: no new responses can be submitted. It also names the inverse sibling reopen_survey, distinguishing it from publish_survey/delete_survey in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to reopen_survey for the reverse operation, which gives a clear when-to-use-this-instead signal. It lacks any precondition guidance (e.g. what happens if the survey is not published or already closed), so it falls short of a full 5.

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