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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context not in annotations: the UUID provenance of event_id ('must be the event UUID returned by search_events') and that export is a separate emailing operation. Return-format detail is legitimately omitted because an output schema exists.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact per-action bullet list, then the two operational notes (event_id provenance, export alternative). Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 four-branch read tool with an output schema, complete annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers all branches, prerequisites, and the one sibling it could be confused with. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents search, status, event_id, and survey_id. The description still adds real meaning beyond it: the meaning of omitting `status` ('omit to list all'), that `search` matches survey titles, and which parameters each action requires. Slightly short of 5 only because it doesn't resolve whether list results are paginated.

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+resource ('Read surveys for the provided event') and then enumerates each of the four sub-operations (list, get, get_results, list_templates) with what each returns. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_survey, delete_survey, publish_survey, and export_survey_responses.

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 requirement per branch (survey_id for get/get_results). It also names the alternative for response export ('use export_survey_responses, it emails the file'), which is exactly the when-to-use-something-else guidance an agent needs.

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