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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real context beyond them: the previewURL 'test mode - shows the survey but stores nothing' behavior, and that the host differs per instance. This is meaningful behavioral detail, though it omits anything about pagination or result limits.

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-loaded with the core action, then enumerates returned fields. The shareURL/previewURL explanation is partially repeated in the closing sentence ('shareURL and previewURL are the canonical survey links'), creating some redundancy, but the content is otherwise efficient.

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 no-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It enumerates return fields that the output schema likely already covers (lower value per rules) but adds useful cross-tool context about the 'code' field and instance-specific hosts.

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 to document and the description adds no misleading parameter info.

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 with scope: 'Lists all surveys of the account that owns the API token'. An agent can distinguish this from get_survey (single) and list_archived_surveys (archived subset) without opening either 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 account scoping implies when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings like get_survey or list_archived_surveys. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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