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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: the fixed 14-day window and the inclusion of zero-response days, which is a meaningful disclosure about result shape. It doesn't mention timezone or ordering, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the time window and count scope, then defines the metric mapping. Zero waste and every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return shape, and it still clarifies the Total/Value mapping. The definition is complete for calling it correctly, though it leaves timezone behavior and ordering unstated.

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 single parameter 'code' is fully documented in the schema, including its origin from list_surveys. The description does not repeat or extend parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (returns response counts) with a precise scope: per calendar day, last 14 days. The parenthetical defines Total and Value unambiguously. Distinguishes from siblings like get_response_counts, get_response_counts_by_device, and get_response_counts_by_source by specifying the by-date dimension.

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 14-day window and per-day granularity imply when to use it (trend over time), but the description offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or names alternatives like get_response_counts for totals. Usage is inferable from scope rather than stated.

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