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

Goes well beyond annotations (which only assert idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false): it explains the idempotency mechanism ('each response has one page, so nothing is duplicated'), states that a concurrent second call is a silent no-op, and describes the async run lifecycle plus how to detect completion. This is exactly the operational context annotations can't convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and mode semantics, then the safety/idempotency note, then the follow-up step. It is a single dense sentence with several clausal additions — all informative, though slightly more punctuation-driven splitting would improve scannability.

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?

Tool is a server-side async start operation with an output schema, and the description covers modes, concurrency safety, and the polling contract — everything an agent needs to invoke it and know what to do next. No important gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already listed, but the description adds real meaning by spell out what 'backfill' selects (completed responses with no page) versus 'retry_failed' (previously failed ones) and confirming backfill is the default. 'surveyId' semantics are left to the schema's reference to survey_list, which is acceptable.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'start sending a syncing survey's responses to its Notion database, on the server.' It clearly distinguishes the write/sync action from sibling tools like notion_survey_sync_get (read/poll) and notion_survey_link_database (setup).

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?

Explicitly states when each mode applies — 'backfill' for responses with no page yet, 'retry_failed' for previously failed ones — plus the no-op condition ('a second call while a run is going does nothing') and the required follow-up (poll notion_survey_sync_get until syncInProgress is false). That is a complete usage recipe including the alternative tool.

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