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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response (id, name, archived, anonymous) in the absence of any output schema. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether archived templates are included or filtered, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then the payoff ('the ids you need'), then the return fields. The trailing 'IntakeQ: GET /questionnaires.' costs little and maps the tool to its underlying endpoint, aiding debugging.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the response burden and does so by listing the key fields plus the workflow purpose. It is nearly complete, lacking only pagination/ordering behavior and any mention of filtering archived items.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical describing return fields is a bonus rather than parameter guidance, which is the correct emphasis for a no-arg tool.

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 and resource ('List the intake questionnaire templates in the account') and scopes it explicitly to templates rather than intakes or sent questionnaires, which separates it from siblings like intakeq_list_intakes and intakeq_send_questionnaire. The parenthetical enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 ids you need to send one' clearly establishes this as the prerequisite step for intakeq_send_questionnaire, giving a concrete when-to-use context. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly or stating when not to use this (e.g., for already-sent intakes), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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