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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: it clarifies the tool is a pure read with no restore/delete capability and that those actions live in the app UI, which is not derivable from annotations. The enumerated return fields somewhat duplicate the output schema, keeping this from 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?

Front-loads identity and scope, then returns, then exclusions. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the return-field enumeration is arguably redundant given the output schema and adds modest length.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining need is scope and when-to-use, both fully covered. An agent has everything required to call it correctly and to know when not to.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level, and it correctly focuses on scope and output instead.

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?

Precise verb+resource+scope: 'Lists the account's ARCHIVED surveys' and immediately defines what archived means (recoverable bin). It names the sibling operation that put them there (archive_survey) and distinguishes itself from list_surveys by excluding live and permanently deleted surveys.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('show the user what is in the bin, e.g. after archiving drafts') and what it is not for: it does not restore or delete, and those actions happen in the QUESTIONSTAR app. The exclusion of live/permanently deleted surveys routes the agent away from this tool when those are the target.

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