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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds the one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the result is a boolean indicating completion status — but says nothing about what counts as 'completed' (partial vs. screened-out vs. finished) or about lookup behavior for a missing response.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a narrow boolean check, though the thinness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return value, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the operational context: when this check is the right call versus the response-reading siblings, and any caveat about responses that don't exist yet.

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%: 'code' is documented as the 8-character publication code with a pointer to list_surveys, and 'personalizedID' is documented including the system-generated fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (returns/checks) and a precise resource (whether the respondent's response for a given survey is completed), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as get_survey_response or get_response_counts, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative. It never explains when a boolean completion check is preferable to fetching the full response via get_survey_response, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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