Get full poll details including all votes and participants. This is the only way to see who voted and how they voted. Returns poll info, time slots, every participant's votes (yes/maybe/no per slot), participant emails, and admin URLs. Use the admin token from poll creation. Use this to check vote status or results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adminToken | Yes | The adm_xxx token from poll creation |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by enumerating return contents (poll info, time slots, votes, participant emails, admin URLs) and specifying authentication requirements. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error behavior, but the verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive operation, and the level of detail is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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 concise, at four sentences, and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes essential authentication and usage details without any fluff or redundant information.
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 no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists what is returned, how to authenticate, and when to use it. It does not cover error scenarios or token validity, but these are not critical for a simple getter, and the description sufficiently informs an agent for correct invocation.
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 input schema already provides a complete description of the single adminToken parameter ('The adm_xxx token from poll creation'). The tool description repeats 'Use the admin token from poll creation' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool retrieves full poll details including all votes and participants, using the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'full poll details'. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be 'the only way to see who voted and how they voted', which makes the purpose specific and non-confusable.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to check vote status or results' and instructs on required authentication material ('Use the admin token from poll creation'). It also states a clear exclusion: 'only way to see who voted and how they voted', indicating other tools cannot fulfill this need, effectively guiding against alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: create, vote, close, reopen, admin view, and participant results. The admin/view split is clearly explained, and close/reopen are unambiguous opposites.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. The naming clearly indicates the action and target resource.
Six tools is well-scoped for a scheduling poll service, covering the essential lifecycle without redundancy.
The core workflow (create, vote, close, reopen, view results) is covered. Missing update/delete operations for polls are minor gaps that can be worked around, and the admin view provides sufficient oversight.
