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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous ('Queues a hosted job'), that the resulting design is immutable, that writes are atomic across tables, and that a real human approval is mandatory. Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false); the async/approval semantics are new information that materially changes how an agent must call this.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: what it creates, how results are retrieved, and the approval prerequisite. No filler; each clause adds actionable information.

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 complex nested-object mutation without an output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: async job handling, approval requirement, and atomic multi-table scope. Missing are revision-conflict behavior, permission expectations, and any error/failure semantics, which leaves minor gaps.

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 only 25% (just requestId and workspaceToken), so the description carries most of the burden for 8 required params, including nested definition and approval objects. It hints at approval authenticity and table selection but says nothing about expectedRevision conflicts, idempotencyKey semantics, or the meaning of definition fields such as fpcMode/lonelyPsuPolicy, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 ('Create an approved immutable Taylor or replicate-weight survey design'), plus the alternate path ('or assign an identical existing design'). The 'atomically across selected tables' scope and the Taylor/replicate-weight qualifier distinguish it from siblings like set_weight or run_complex_survey_method.

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?

Gives clear operational context: 'Queues a hosted job; use get_job to retrieve its result' and the prerequisite 'Obtain actual user approval before calling.' It does not name alternative tools for related weighting/design tasks (e.g., set_weight), so it falls short of explicit alternatives, but the when-to-use condition is stated.

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