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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value with 'Public/read-only' (no auth required) and the return shape hint ('ids + questions'), though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or the default limit value.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the WHEN and differentiation clauses follow in tight order, and the example closes it out. No filler sentences; 'Public/read-only' is the only mild overlap with the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still previews them. For a single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly is present.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'limit' as 'Max polls to return.' The description adds nothing about the default limit, max value, or ordering semantics, which is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('List polls') and immediately differentiates itself from the three sibling poll tools by naming them and their distinct roles. An agent can distinguish arena_poll_list from arena_poll_results, arena_poll_vote, and arena_poll_create without opening any 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 WHEN clause gives the exact trigger ('browse recent lobby polls') and explicitly names all three alternatives with their purposes, so when-not-to-use is fully covered. The '{}' example also shows the no-argument default call.

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