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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that some fields can be locked once responses exist — but says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent ID or the shape of the returned configuration.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the object and then enumerates the returned contents; each listed item is substantive configuration data rather than filler. Slightly list-heavy but efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (metric and scale, language, goal, themes, breakdown properties, locked fields), which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Only minor gaps remain around failure modes.

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 100% and the single parameter even documents its source ('as returned by list_surveys or create_survey'). The description adds no further meaning about survey_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('full configuration of one survey') and enumerates the contents, which makes it clearly distinct from list_surveys, get_results, and create_survey without naming them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with a sibling, so a 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the follow-up to list_surveys when the configuration of a single survey is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative such as list_surveys for browsing many surveys.

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