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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context: the stable-identifier semantics of resultCaseID and, importantly, that respondent contact/personal data is deliberately excluded from the response — a privacy boundary the annotations do not convey.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core result and then the identifier/personal-data caveats. It is information-rich without wasted clauses, though the payload enumeration is long enough that it borders on listing what the output schema already shows.

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 two-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, the key usage scenario, identifier semantics, and a data-exclusion caveat — everything needed to call it correctly. The enumeration of returned fields is partly redundant against the existing output schema, which keeps it just under full marks.

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%, so both 'code' (8-character publication code) and 'personalizedID' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds interpretive context (what a result case is, that items address questions by variable name) but contributes nothing new about the two parameters themselves, 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 one respondent's response (result case)') and immediately enumerates the payload it yields (items, device, browser, source, duration, completion state). The singular 'one respondent's response' contrasts cleanly with the sibling list_survey_responses, so an agent can pick between them without opening a 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?

Explains the incremental-read scenario by tying resultCaseID to de-duplicating reads via list_survey_responses' ChangedSince, which is concrete usage context. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need a single response vs the list tool' statement, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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