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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about returning aggregated response and invitation metrics, but it does not disclose potential details like date ranges, filtering, or pagination. With good annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It clearly states the purpose and intended use case. It could be slightly more specific about the nature of 'metrics' (e.g., counts vs. averages), but the output schema likely covers this, so the description is adequate.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (surveyId: 'Survey ID'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, and it is not needed since the schema fully documents it. The baseline of 3 applies because 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('response and invitation metrics') and scope ('for a survey overview dashboard'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_survey (survey details) and get_survey_responses (likely raw response data), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a survey overview dashboard' gives clear usage context, indicating this tool is intended for dashboard-style aggregated metrics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context strongly implies it should be used for summary metrics rather than raw data.

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