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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new information: the server has no survey-response capability at all, so an agent shouldn't hunt for a submit tool. It does not mention pagination or result volume, but the key behavioral fact is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the scope constraint. The awkward line wrapping adds no information but the content itself is tight and waste-free.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: what is listed, the course scope, and the read-only limitation. Only the relationship to list_surveys is left unexplained.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'one or more courses' confirms the array accepts multiple ids, which is a small addition over the schema baseline.

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 (list feedback/survey activities) and the scope (across one or more courses), which an agent can act on directly. It is nearly distinguishable from siblings, though calling feedback '(survey)' blurs the line with the separate list_surveys tool.

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 gives a clear usage boundary -- this tool only reads, responding to surveys is not supported -- which tells the agent what it cannot do here. It stops short of naming when to pick this over list_surveys or how the two differ.

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