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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world), so they provide minimal safety context. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the operation returns details including share_url and enumerating supported question types. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences achieve clarity. The first sentence states the action and return value; the second lists question types. No filler words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (many nested objects for styles, settings, logic, ending screens), the description wisely leaves detailed parameter information to the schema. It provides the essential context (create + return + supported types), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool. The absence of an output schema is partially addressed by mentioning the share_url, but a few more behavioral notes would make it 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?

The input schema has high coverage (88%) and documents most parameters. The description goes beyond the schema by listing all supported question types (short_text, multiple_choice, etc.), which is essential because the schema only gives examples and does not provide an enum for the 'type' field. This addition meaningfully supports correct parameter usage.

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 creates a new survey, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_survey, delete_survey, and duplicate_survey. It also specifies the return value (survey details including share_url) and lists supported question types, leaving no ambiguity about the operation's purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when a new survey needs to be created) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that duplicating an existing survey would use duplicate_survey instead, nor does it note any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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