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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description adds limited extra behavioural context. It does disclose the underlying API route, but omits whether links expire, whether calls are idempotent, or what happens if the contact/survey does not 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?

A single dense sentence with the essential purpose front-loaded, followed by a short API reference. The endpoint string is arguably redundant for an MCP agent, but it is compact and does not bloat the definition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys both input intent and the returned artifact (a URL). The only real gap is the absence of failure/expiry behaviour, which is minor at this complexity.

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 both survey_id and contact_id documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the pairing ('one contact' for 'a survey') but adds no syntax, format, or ID-source detail beyond the schema.

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 (get) and resource (personalised survey URL for one contact) and immediately clarifies the scope as a single-contact link, which implicitly separates it from formbricks_get_survey_segment_links. An agent can distinguish this from its siblings without opening a schema.

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 clause 'the link you send so their response is attributed to them' communicates the use context (per-contact response attribution), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states prerequisites (e.g. contact must already exist) or points to the segment-links alternative when a bulk link is needed, so usage is only implied.

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