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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the action-based dispatch model and the provenance constraint that event_id must be a UUID returned by search_events, which prevents a common failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight two-bullet action dispatch and one provenance note. Nothing is redundant with the schema; every line helps the agent construct a valid call.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly covers both action branches and the shared event scoping. It omits edge cases such as behavior when a survey has no question bank or what happens if both survey_id and assessment_id are supplied, leaving a small gap for a polymorphic tool.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by mapping parameters to actions and stating the either/or relationship between survey_id and assessment_id at the description level rather than forcing the agent to infer it from a oneOf schema. It adds syntax-level routing value, though not format or validation details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read questions from a survey's or assessment's question bank') scoped to an event. Combined with the sibling list (create_question, update_question, delete_question), an agent can immediately tell this is the read path for question banks.

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 dispatches on `action` and states the parameter requirement for each branch ('list': survey_id or assessment_id; 'get': question_id plus one of those). It also specifies that event_id must come from search_events. It stops short of naming when to prefer read_surveys or read_polls instead, so no true exclusion guidance.

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