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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns metrics for a dashboard, which is consistent. No contradictions, and the description provides additional context beyond annotations.

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 a single efficient sentence with no waste. However, it is very minimal and could include slightly more detail without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one required parameter), the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), and the low complexity, the description is largely complete. However, it does not specify which metrics are returned (e.g., response count, invitation count), which would be helpful.

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% (surveyId is described as 'Survey ID'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 specific verb ('Get'), specifies the resource ('response and invitation metrics for a survey overview dashboard'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `get_survey` and `get_survey_responses` by indicating it provides aggregated overview data.

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?

The description implies usage when an overview of survey metrics is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like `get_booking_stats` or `get_dashboard_stats`, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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