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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: two distinct result shapes (survey vs concept_test), the fact that the result carries no URLs, and the follow-up call needed plus the instruction to present an absolute clickable link. The non-idempotency note largely restates idempotentHint=false, though it adds the practical consequence ('each call creates another survey').

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the templateId source, then the return shape, then the required follow-up. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded, though the return-shape detail duplicates the existing output schema slightly.

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 creation tool this covers the essentials: where the ID comes from, the two possible success shapes, the missing-link caveat and its remedy, and the non-idempotent risk of repeated calls. An agent can execute and complete the user-facing task from the description alone.

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's own description already says the ID comes from template_lookup or template_list, so the description mostly repeats rather than extends it. No additional format, validation, or example guidance is added, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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, resource, and output form: 'Create a new draft survey from a template', and immediately qualifies the source of templateId (template_lookup or template_list). This clearly separates it from survey_create (blank creation), survey_duplicate, and the template_* read tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scaffolding: obtain templateId via template_lookup or template_list, then call survey_get with survey.id to get editorUrl/shareUrl because 'The result has no links'. It lacks an explicit contrast with survey_create for non-template cases, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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