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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds real behavior beyond that: ownership and visibility ('owned by and visible to you'), the language default, a readback verification step through get_survey, and atomicity ('on failure nothing is left behind').

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 with the essential facts, but the empty-container idea is stated twice ('one page, no questions' and again 'created as an empty container; its questions, pages and logic are added by the authoring tools afterwards'), and the closing pointer to survey_quality_guidelines is tangential.

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 return values needn't be explained, yet the description still covers creation scope, ownership, defaults, verification, failure behavior, and next steps. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters, including the de default. The description's restatement of the language default adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource plus the initial state ('new empty survey (one page, no questions)') and the return value ('8-char code'), which cleanly separates it from clone_survey, list_surveys, and create_survey_response.

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?

Positions the tool in the authoring workflow explicitly: 'Build it up with add_question, then publish_survey,' naming the sibling tools that follow. It does not say when to prefer clone_survey or import instead, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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