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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding non-annotation behavior: sort order (oldest reply first), page size (30 per call), and the underlying endpoint GET /v3/surveys/ratings — all directly useful for driving pagination.

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?

One dense sentence with the type taxonomy, ordering, page size and endpoint, front-loaded with the resource. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 read-only, single-optional-param list tool with no output schema, an agent has what it needs: what the ratings are, how they're ordered, the page size, and how to page. It stops short of saying what fields each rating contains or how to detect the last page, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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% with a single optional 'offset' parameter already documented in the schema, so the description carries no param burden. It adds nothing about offset semantics in the description, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is baseline, not value-add.

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 the specific resource — customer satisfaction survey ratings — and decodes the type values (1 CSAT, 2 five-star, 3 NPS), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. The list verb is only implied by '30 per call' and the title rather than stated outright, and no sibling differentiation is offered because none of the siblings overlap.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. Usage is only implied by the pagination hint ('oldest reply first, 30 per call'), which tells an agent how to page but not when this tool is the right choice over the ticket/contact siblings.

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