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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the edit-survey right requirement, readback verification of the result, and the branching-ordering constraint. It does not, however, describe what happens on an invalid permutation, which would round this out.

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 action and return value, then the parameter contract, then the constraint and prerequisites. Dense but every clause carries information; the branching explanation is slightly long but justified given the subtlety it prevents.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes them. Permissions, parameter contract, ordering constraint, and verification are all covered — nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that order must be a permutation of every page 'as get_survey reports them' and that numbers are 1-based and current — meaningfully sharpening the parameter's contract.

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 ('Reorders a survey's pages') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings that add/delete/flags pages by noting it returns the current page list. An agent can tell it apart from add_survey_page, delete_survey_page, and set_survey_page_flags without opening 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?

Gives a clear operating constraint — keep each branching source page before the pages it gates, because show/skip logic fires on page moves — and points to get_survey as the source of the page numbers. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool to use instead in edge cases, so it is clear context without full when-not routing.

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