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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by explaining the consequence ('visible to attendees'). It stops short of saying whether publishing is reversible (a reopen_survey sibling exists) or what happens if the survey is already published, which is the most decision-relevant behavior for a destructive, non-idempotent call.

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, both earning their place: the first states the action and its precondition, the second states the resulting state change. Nothing is padded and the action is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only material gap is that it does not clarify reversibility or the failure mode of publishing an already-published survey, which matters given the destructive hint.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including a useful cross-reference to search_events for event_id. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('an existing draft survey') scoped to an event, which is unambiguous against siblings like close_survey or create_survey. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or route the agent between publish/reopen/close, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the verb.

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?

'Publish an existing draft survey' implies the precondition that a draft must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the sibling alternatives (reopen_survey, close_survey, create_survey) that an agent might confuse this with. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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