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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds semantic meaning for the returned Total/Value fields, which is useful, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or edge cases like zero responses.

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 no filler; the return-value clarification is compact. It is efficient and appropriately sized, though the Total/Value definition reads slightly terse.

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 need not be spelled out, and the annotations fully cover the read-only/idempotent behavior. For a one-parameter read tool the definition is essentially sufficient, with only the sibling routing left implicit.

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 the single 'code' parameter is well documented in the schema itself (8-char public link code, sourced from list_surveys). The description adds no parameter detail, 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 ('Returns overall response counts for a survey') and even defines the two returned values. The word 'overall' implicitly contrasts with the by_date/by_device/by_source siblings, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the differentiation.

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?

'Overall' hints that this is the unfiltered aggregate variant, implying usage versus the dimensioned siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no alternative named, so the guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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