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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only aggregate counts are returned, that individual answers and free text are never surfaced, that groups under 5 responses are suppressed as '<5', and that results are anonymous. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the privacy/suppression constraint — the most decision-relevant fact — is front-loaded and the tool's read-only aggregate nature is unambiguous.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: aggregate counts with a <5 suppression rule and anonymity. Auth requirements and error behavior are unstated, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single survey_id parameter (including its 'eva-research-1' default) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 (Public Survey Booth results) and the form the data takes (aggregate counts only), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling hub_survey_submit. It reads as a retrieval tool without literally using a retrieval verb, and it does not name siblings 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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this reads results of a survey rather than submitting or withdrawing one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of hub_survey_submit as the counterpart, and no preconditions described.

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