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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the answers map structure, but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or return value. Given the annotations, the description provides some value but not rich context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and clarifies the key parameter. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the tool returns, what validation occurs, or how user_id and completion_time are used. However, the schema covers all parameters, and the tool is relatively simple, so it meets a minimum viable standard.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of 'Answers is a map of question_id to answer value' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Submit a response to a survey') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_response and list_responses which are read operations. The scope is 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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (to submit responses programmatically) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from read-only siblings, but no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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