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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish the safety profile, so the description does not need to re-state that this is a read. It does add useful context beyond the annotations: the payload includes question ids, and this is the prerequisite step for save_survey. It does not cover behavior for an invalid or missing id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the actionable prerequisite. Nothing is wasted. A slightly clearer ordering (purpose, then the save_survey dependency) would be marginal improvement.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description gives the essentials: content of the response and the downstream workflow. It does not mention error behavior or whether the response can be large for surveys with many questions, which an agent planning a save loop would benefit from.

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 0% with a single required parameter `id`, so the description must carry the meaning. It implies the id identifies the survey being fetched, but never says so explicitly, nor whether it is the survey id versus a question id. Adequate but leaves a small ambiguity.

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 names a specific resource (a survey) and states its scope precisely: the survey along with all its questions, including their ids. This distinguishes it from list_surveys (which lists surveys) and hints at the difference from get_survey_results (results vs. structure), though that sibling is not named.

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 gives an explicit workflow rule: call this before editing with save_survey. That tells the agent exactly when this retrieval is required and which mutation tool consumes its output. What is missing is any guidance on when to use get_survey_results or list_surveys instead.

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