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

Annotations alone only say the call is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no account is required, the interaction is deliberately short, and the submitted data is consumed to drive tool creation. It misses what happens on repeat submissions (relevant given idempotentHint=false) and any retention/visibility note, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts ('30-second survey, no account') before the content list and the downstream purpose. The middle clause is a comma-spliced list, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Only one parameter is required, all nine are fully described in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs (no auth, low effort, purpose of collection). Nothing required to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 the schema already documents all nine fields, including the two enums. The description paraphrases the important ones (task, max_usd_per_call, payment, missing) in natural language but adds no format, range, or default detail the schema does not already carry. Baseline 3 is correct 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 states a specific action and resource: submitting a short demand-survey (task, willingness to pay, payment method, unmet needs) that ManyLives uses to build new pay-per-call tools. That is far more than a restatement of the name/title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like register_interest or submit_feedback, so it stops short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: the '30-second survey, no account' framing signals a low-commitment path to signal unmet demand, and 'ManyLives builds new pay-per-call tools from the answers' hints at the payoff. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule and no named alternative (e.g. versus request_connector or register_interest), so the agent must infer the routing.

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