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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not destructive and not open-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds what actually appears on screen (QR code vs. voting widget), which is useful, but it omits whether the widget is persisted on the board, whether repeated calls overwrite prior output, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences, each keyed to a parameter condition, with the default case stated first. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the interesting parameter and both display modes, but does not resolve the identity of 'id'/'board_id' or the persistence and side-effect semantics of placing content on a board. Adequate, not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains 'question' well (id of a choice, yes/no or scale question) but leaves both required parameters, 'id' and 'board_id', completely undefined — the agent must guess that 'id' is the survey id and 'board_id' the target board.

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 concrete verb ('auf den Bildschirm' = display on screen) and the resource (survey), and clearly splits behavior into two modes depending on the presence of 'question'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like show_board, add_widget or get_survey_results, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 explicit branch conditions: no question → QR-code with the survey link; with question (id of a choice/yes-no/scale question) → result as a voting widget. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it never says when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for related tasks (e.g., viewing results without displaying them).

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