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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (a list of numeric IDs, i.e. not full records), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, pagination, or behavior for an empty/invalid period.

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 identifies the resource and its scope with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.

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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what it retrieves and the schema covers all inputs. It omits any guidance on what to do with the returned IDs or how they relate to get_surveys, leaving a modest gap.

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 both parameters plus the enum are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the framing concept of an 'aggregation period', which loosely links the two parameters but adds little syntax or format 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 and resource ('Zwraca listę numerycznych identyfikatorów sondaży') scoped to a given aggregation period, so the agent knows it returns IDs rather than full survey objects. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_surveys, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_surveys or the projection tools. The agent can only infer from 'returns IDs' that this is the lightweight lookup, but no condition or alternative is named.

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