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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics not in the annotations: that ranking distributions count FIRST-place ranks only and that each respondent contributes one entry, so percentages read as share of respondents. It doesn't discuss pagination or result-size limits.

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-loads the return contents in one dense sentence and reserves the second for the ranking caveat, which is the highest-value clarification. The trailing fragment 'Optional since/until window the results' is grammatically incomplete and slightly wasteful, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With read-only annotations covering safety, a fully documented schema, and an output schema present, the description fills its remaining job well: it clarifies the non-obvious ranking-percentage semantics and points to where question ids come from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents since, until, projectId, questionId, and includeLowQuality in detail. The description only restates the date window as 'optional since/until window the results' and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 resource (results for ONE question) and enumerates exactly what it returns: response count, average, option distribution, and top phrases. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_question and channel_breakdown by scoping to a single question's aggregated breakdown.

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 clear context: resolve question ids via project_overview's `questions` list, and states the optional since/until window. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling (e.g. channel_breakdown or get_question), so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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