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

With readOnly=false declared, the description adds unusually rich behavior beyond annotations: each address gets its own link, a lost link requires a new poll, the app sends nothing (caller must distribute), guests answer without an account, re-answering replaces the prior answer, answers are private, and the poll closes on booking or after 14 days, after which it retains no address or answer. It also states bookings need a calendar that poll creation does not require.

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 core purpose, but the body is a dense run-on of long clauses (link lifecycle, circles, guest pages, time zones) that resists parsing. Much of it earns its place as behavior, yet it could be broken into shorter sentences or a lifecycle list without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partly covers returns ('handed back in this answer alone'). For a mutation tool with six parameters it adequately covers lifecycle, closure rules, privacy, distribution responsibility, and the calendar dependency. It leaves the exact response shape vague, so not a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: subject should carry the host's own name ('Intro call with Sam Lee') because the guest page names nobody but the meeting, and guestZones is tied to a known time zone as events_create knows one. These are substantive usage notes not present in the schema descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Make a poll of times free_times_find found for a named meeting, for the people it is for.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming polls_results (ranks), polls_book (books), and circles_free_times_find as the intended upstream source. The phrasing is convoluted, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives clear context for use: times come from free_times_find, invitees are 'the people it is for,' and the circle variant is spelled out ('Naming a circle makes a poll for members of it or ... addresses invited that have not joined'). It routes downstream work to polls_results and polls_book. It stops short of explicit when-not/alternative selection, so not a 5.

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