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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: matching is against title or description, results are capped at 10, and each hit carries id, title and url. It stops short of saying what happens when more than 10 matches exist.

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, no waste, with scope and match fields front-loaded and the follow-up action last. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 single-parameter search with an output schema, the definition covers scope, match fields, result cap and next step. The one omission is whether the 10-result cap can be exceeded or refined, which matters for an agent that gets a full page of hits.

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 schema already documents the query parameter with an example and length bounds. The description's 'by title or description' confirms the matching fields but adds no syntax, weighting, or partial-match behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 (search) and a specific resource (QuestionPunk studies, i.e. surveys and AI interviews) within the connected account, which is far more informative than the generic name 'search'. It names 'fetch' as the follow-up tool but does not distinguish itself from siblings like survey_list or template_lookup, which also surface studies.

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 closing 'Read a result with fetch' gives a clear next step after a hit, which is genuine workflow guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over survey_list or template_lookup, nor any exclusion such as when browsing rather than keyword-searching.

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