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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that optional status/search filters are supported, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. However, it omits other behaviors like pagination or ordering. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not extensive.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List surveys with optional status/search filters.' It is concise, with every word contributing meaning and no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain return values (covered by the output schema) or safety (covered by annotations). It might lack explicit pagination details, but that is not necessary for the core purpose.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, search, status), including enums for status. The description's mention of 'status/search filters' merely repeats the schema's parameter semantics without adding additional meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List surveys' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional status/search filters, which further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_survey or get_survey_stats.

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 (listing surveys with filters) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_survey for retrieving a single survey. It neither names alternatives nor suggests exclusions, so it relies on inference.

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