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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'this tool is read-only' largely restates structured data. The one piece of added value is disclosing a server-level capability boundary (no survey submission), which saves an agent from hunting for a write path. Nothing about result volume, pagination, or behavior for invalid/unenrolled course ids.

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 verb and resource. 'Read-only coverage only' is slightly redundant phrasing and duplicates the readOnlyHint, but there is no padding otherwise.

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?

Low-complexity tool: one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. The only meaningful missing context is how a 'Survey activity' is distinguished from the feedback/quiz activity types that sit beside it in the sibling list.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('One or more course ids to list survey activities for'). The description's 'across one or more courses' merely echoes that, adding no format, ordering, or batching semantics.

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 Survey activities') plus the scope ('across one or more courses'). The resource noun separates it from the many other list_* siblings (list_assignments, list_quizzes, list_feedbacks), though it never explicitly contrasts with the nearest analogue, list_feedbacks.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers 'call this when you need survey activities for given courses.' The second sentence gives a genuine scope exclusion (survey answering is unsupported by this server), but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_courses or get_course_contents.

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