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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, closed world), so the 'Read-only' sentence is redundant. The genuinely valuable additions are interpretive: nps_score is promoters minus detractors on -100..+100 and may legitimately be negative, and averages are null rather than 0 when unanswered. These prevent real misreadings of the output and go well beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose and scope lead, followed by three tightly focused sentences on interpreting NPS, nulls and zero responses. Every sentence earns its place; the only waste is the redundant 'Read-only.'

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 no output schema, the return-value interpretation notes are exactly what the description should carry and they are well done. The gap is on the input side: nothing tells an agent how to use since/until/form_id or what the defaults are.

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 0% across three parameters (since, until, form_id), so the description is the only place parameter meaning could come from — yet it never mentions date bounds, their format or defaults, or what form_id selects. 'Collected by the assigned questionnaires' faintly gestures at form scoping but adds no actionable semantics.

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 names a specific resource — intern questionnaire feedback (CSAT, NPS, free-text drop-out reasons) — and scopes it to what the assigned questionnaires collected, which separates it from recruiter/mentor/stage-duration reports. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the intern-plus-questionnaire scope is concrete enough to route on.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'assigned questionnaires' and 'responses: 0' hints that it is for viewing feedback that has already been collected, but there is no statement of when to choose this over hr_dropoff_reasons_report (which overlaps on drop-out reasons) or hr_get_form_response. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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