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

Annotations indicate this is a write, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds that starting a job creates a survey container and that retries are deduplicated via Idempotency-Key. It also discloses the required scope (jobs:write), which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by exclusions and a required header. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides essential operational context: what a job is, what not to send, idempotency behavior, and auth scope. The schema handles parameter detail well, and the description complements it, though exact response behavior is left implicit.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with detailed descriptions, enums, defaults, and formats, so the description does not need to repeat parameter semantics. It reinforces the idempotency key requirement and excludes contact parameters, but adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description uses a concrete verb ('Start') with a clear resource ('a job') and clarifies that a job is the survey container. It is clear about the core action, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like submit_job or set_contact to differentiate them.

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?

It explicitly states that contact details are not accepted here and instructs the caller to send an Idempotency-Key to prevent duplicate jobs. This gives useful when/how guidance, but it does not name a specific alternative tool for contact details or for final submission, so the exclusion is implied rather than fully explicit.

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