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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Use the admin token from poll creation') and the core state change (reopen to accept votes), but lacks details on side effects like whether existing votes are preserved or what the response looks like.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is stated first, and the auth requirement is a necessary addition. Perfectly sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains when to use (previously closed poll) and how (use admin token). It could mention that the poll must be closed, but 'previously closed' covers this. Overall, complete enough for the low complexity.

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% and the adminToken parameter is already well-documented as 'The adm_xxx token from poll creation.' The description only repeats this information, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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's action: 'Reopen a previously closed poll to accept votes again.' It distinguishes this from siblings like close_poll and create_poll by specifying the reopen/accept-votes behavior.

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 implies usage context ('previously closed poll') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, though no explicit exclusions or sibling references.

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