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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the raw v2 endpoint and the attribution purpose, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the link expires or is single-use, or rate 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage gloss immediately after. The raw endpoint reference is mildly redundant for an agent, but it is compact and useful for correlating with Formbricks API docs.

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 only two fully described params and no output schema, the description does its job: it identifies the return value (a survey URL) and the safety profile is carried by annotations. Remaining gaps (link lifetime, single-use behavior) are minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the description need not restate them. Beyond echoing the IDs inside the endpoint template, it adds no syntax, format, or lookup semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the personalised survey URL for one contact') and explains what the artifact is for, which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling formbricks_get_survey_segment_links, which is a near-neighbour capability.

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?

Usage is implied by the gloss 'the link you send so their response is attributed to them', which conveys the intent of attributing a single contact's response. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the segment-links alternative, so routing still requires inference.

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