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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /widget/surveys) and the fact that ids are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size for an open-world list operation.

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 tight sentence plus an endpoint reference, with the key scoping/next-step information front-loaded. Almost no waste, though the trailing 'GET /widget/surveys' is of limited value to an agent choosing a tool.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, stating that ids are returned covers the main return-value question an agent would have. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only minor detail on result shape.

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% and the single boolean parameter (exclude_inactive) is documented in the schema itself; the description adds no further meaning about its effect. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource concretely — the store's surveys (campaigns) — and states that ids are returned, and it differentiates itself from the sibling list_survey_responses by naming it. The verb 'list' is only carried by the title/name rather than the description text, so it falls just short of a fully self-contained verb+resource statement.

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?

It gives one piece of forward guidance: use an id with reviewsio_list_survey_responses. However, it never says when to choose this tool over other list tools or what prerequisites/scoping apply, 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.