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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the survey must be closed and that reopening enables attendee submissions again. It does not cover permissions, edge cases such as reopening an already-open survey, or side effects beyond the core state change.

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?

The description is a single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase contributes: 'closed survey' scopes the operation, 'provided event' points to the event parameter, and the final clause explains the outcome.

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, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the action, target state, and intended effect. It could be stronger by noting prerequisites such as required permissions or behavior when the survey is already open.

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%, and both event_id and survey_id are fully documented in the input schema. The description only implies their roles through 'provided event' and 'closed survey,' adding no additional syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: reopen a closed survey for an event. It also states the intended effect, letting attendees submit responses again. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as close_survey or publish_survey, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'closed survey' implies the tool is for surveys that are currently closed, and the description gives a clear outcome context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like publish_survey or reopen_poll, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites explicitly.

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