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

Annotations cover safety (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: omitted flags stay unchanged (partial-update semantics), the change is 'Verified by readback', markComplete affects completed statistics, and an auth requirement is stated. It does not say whether flipping a flag retroactively affects already-collected responses, which is the one notable gap.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and return value come first, then per-flag semantics, then the alternative, then prerequisites. No filler sentences, though the multi-clause sentences per flag make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 detailed, yet the description still summarizes the returned page list. Combined with prerequisite rights, partial-update semantics, and the sibling alternative, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it defines 1-based page numbering semantics in prose and explains the operational consequence of each flag (completion statistics, survey ending behavior) rather than just restating the schema text.

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 ('sets a page's flags') plus the return payload ('returns the current page list (number, title, question count, flags)'). It also names the sibling it should not be confused with ('usually you want add_end_page instead'), so an agent can differentiate it without opening another 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 explicit when-to-use for each flag: markComplete for surveys where the required part ends mid-flow with optional content after, isEnd for ending a survey on a page's own content. It names the preferred alternative (add_end_page) for the common case and states the prerequisite ('Requires the edit-survey right on this survey').

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