Poll and survey results

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: quiz answer keys are withheld until a survey closes, and no participant identities are ever returned. These data-visibility rules are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and each clause (result shapes, close_survey linkage, answer-key timing, no identities) carries distinct information. Slightly long but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly per survey kind, plus caveats about answer-key timing and anonymity. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter (code) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the pattern and example documented in the schema itself. The description implies 'room' scoping but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (read) and resource (every survey in a room) and enumerates the returned shape per survey kind (choice counts, ratings average, word clouds), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_room_questions or get_room_qa without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts: reporting results, and obtaining the survey_id that close_survey consumes. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative read tool, so it falls short of a 5, but the downstream linkage is concrete and actionable.

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