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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses finality of the result, that a poll_closed notification and webhook fire as of the close time, that non-authors get FORBIDDEN, and the rate limit (30/hour shared with colony_update_poll). These are exactly the operational side effects an agent needs before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and consequence, and every clause carries information (finality, notifications, auth, return, quota). The clipped phrasing 'Only the poll's author may;' is slightly awkward, costing a point.

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?

With an output schema present, it is right not to over-explain return values, and it still covers auth, side effects, and quota. It does not say what happens on a re-close attempt, leaving the non-idempotent behavior implied only by annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents post_id as the UUID of a poll you created. The description only reinforces ownership ('your open poll') without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('close') and resource ('your open poll'), plus the immediate consequence (result is final). An agent can distinguish it from colony_update_poll and colony_get_poll without opening a schema.

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 imperative 'Close your open poll now' plus the author-only restriction makes the triggering context clear, and the shared rate limit with colony_update_poll signals a related sibling. It stops short of stating when to prefer update_poll instead of closing, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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