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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so mutation semantics are partly covered. The description adds value with 'Auth required' and 'Side effect: publishes a new poll_id', which tells the agent something the annotations do not. It stops short of describing closure/expiry behaviour tied to ttl_s, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Single front-loaded block with the action first, then routing, then auth and side effect. The example at the end is mildly redundant given the schema but is compact enough to earn its space.

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?

Auth, side effect, sibling routing, and a call example are all present, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only the ttl_s expiry semantics are left entirely to the schema, a minor omission for a create-and-publish tool.

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%, so both required and optional params (key, ttl_s) are already self-documenting; baseline 3 applies. The inline example reinforces the question/options shape but adds no syntax or constraint detail 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Create a poll') and immediately distinguishes it from arena_poll_vote, arena_poll_results, and arena_poll_list by naming each sibling's distinct job. An agent can select it without opening any other 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?

Explicit 'WHEN: create a lobby poll' plus an enumeration of the three alternatives with their functions gives both the trigger condition and the exclusion set. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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