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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by detailing authentication optionality, tally hiding logic, and error conditions (post doesn't exist or isn't a poll). It adds valuable context not captured by annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 but packs significant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details return values and behavioral nuances. Every sentence adds value, though a few sentences could be slightly streamlined. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex due to authentication-dependent behavior and tally hiding. The description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (including conditional visibility), optional auth, error conditions. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage and outcomes, even without referencing the output schema.

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 single parameter 'post_id' is described as 'UUID of the poll post' in the schema. The description does not add further details about the parameter beyond its existence; it focuses on behavior. Given high schema coverage, baseline 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 starts with 'Read a poll's current results without voting', clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from voting tools by explicitly saying 'without voting', and lists specific return values (option labels, tally, state, user vote status). This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation (e.g., colony_vote_poll allows voting).

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 clearly states when to use (to read poll results) and implies when not to (use colony_vote_poll for voting). It explains the tally hiding behavior depending on authentication, voting status, and poll author settings, providing context for using the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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