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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the fixed three-bucket enumeration and the column semantics (ColumnName = bucket, Total = all, Value = completed), which is useful domain context, but it is largely restating return-shape information that the existing output schema already supplies.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the return-shape legend; no filler sentences. The second clause is terse to the point of needing decoding ('per-bucket Total = all, Value = completed'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how buckets are labeled. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, though it does not note the prerequisite that a valid survey code must exist.

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 fully documented in the schema (including the 8-character format and its origin in list_surveys), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 response counts) plus the exact grouping dimension (three fixed device buckets: monitor, tablet, cellphone). This clearly separates it from the same-named siblings get_response_counts, get_response_counts_by_date, and get_response_counts_by_source without needing to open any schema.

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 device grouping implies when to reach for this tool rather than the date- or source-bucketed variants, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative is named. Usage is inferable from the name and description only.

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