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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only mentions generating a questionnaire, omitting details like permissions, side effects, output format, or whether the questionnaire is returned immediately. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence of 16 words—extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary details; a bit more context would improve without losing efficiency.

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 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after generation (e.g., returns a questionnaire, stores it, initiates a process), nor how it fits with sibling tools like build_validation_pack or recommend_agent_tools.

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 sole parameter 'goal' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what 'goal' means or how it affects the questionnaire. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what to input.

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 (generate), the resource (10-minute intake questionnaire), and the target user (non-developer wanting one workflow automated). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_automation_plan or design_automation_stack, but could be more specific about the questionnaire's purpose.

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?

Implies usage for non-developers with a single workflow automation need, but provides no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., when to use build_customer_intake vs. audit_automation_plan).

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