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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds genuine context beyond them: shareUrl only accepts responses once status is published, and editorUrl is the owner's editor, plus the instruction to hand the user an absolute clickable link. It does not cover failure modes for a bad/unknown surveyId, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the read purpose before the when-to-use advice and the URL handoff notes. It is a fairly dense multi-clause sentence covering returns, prerequisites and link handling; slightly tighter phrasing would reduce the run-on quality, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully flags the two URL fields and the published-status caveat for shareUrl. For a read-only single-record fetch this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and route the result; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 is fully typed as a uuid, so the schema already carries the burden. The description only repeats "surveyId comes from survey_list," matching the schema wording rather than adding new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-param tool with complete schema documentation.

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?

"Read one survey" is a specific verb plus resource, and the description immediately enumerates what comes back (questions with ids, answer types, options, languages, screens, status, versions.current). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling survey_list, which is named as the source of surveyId.

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?

Explicit directive: "Call it before editing or analyzing a survey to get question ids and the current version." It also names the upstream alternative (survey_list) that supplies surveyId, so the ordering of calls is unambiguous.

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