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 valuable context by disclosing the returned components and flagging the personal-data sensitivity, though it does not discuss pagination or response format.

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 tightly written sentences. The return contents are front-loaded, and the privacy warning follows immediately without waste.

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 read-only tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return contents and a critical privacy constraint. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with both survey_id and respondent_id fully documented including where the IDs come from. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope: one participant's full interview, listing score, conversation, summary, and topics. It implicitly distinguishes from aggregate siblings like get_results and get_topic_quotes, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear privacy-driven condition: show it only when the person asked for it. That is a meaningful when-to-use rule, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives such as get_results or get_topic_quotes.

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