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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It states the core behavior (stop accepting new votes) but does not disclose whether existing votes are preserved, whether closing is reversible (despite the sibling 'reopen_poll'), or what kind of response is returned. This is adequate for a simple action but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a short usage directive. Every word contributes to understanding, and the key information appears immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the essentials: what the action does and what input is needed. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but the simplicity of the operation makes this a minor 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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (adminToken) with a clear description. The tool description reiterates the token source without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('poll'), and clearly states the effect ('stop accepting new votes'). It is distinct from the sibling 'reopen_poll' tool and immediately conveys the tool'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?

The description gives a clear use case and an explicit prerequisite: 'Use the admin token from poll creation.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that context makes the appropriate use clear.

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