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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints - no indication of what 'detailed info' contains or that a missing slug yields an error.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scoping key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized for a simple single-record fetch, though it is arguably too terse to be called maximally informative.

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 tool with rich annotations, the essentials are present, but there is no output schema and the description never says what a 'report' contains, so an agent cannot anticipate the return shape. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% and the single parameter even includes a concrete example slug, so the schema carries the full burden. The description's phrase 'by slug' merely restates the schema and adds no format or validation detail. 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 verb (get/retrieve) and resource (single survey report) plus a scoping key (by slug), which is enough for an agent to know exactly what comes back. It does not need heavy sibling differentiation here since the sibling names (vendors, surveys-for-position, search) are clearly distinct resources.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus find_surveys_for_position, recommend_surveys, or search, and no prerequisites beyond the implied need for a slug. The reader must infer that a slug has to be obtained elsewhere first.

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