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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that answers originate from the respondent's own link, and that booked or closed polls return no answers at all with 'booked' naming the booking time. That edge-case disclosure is real value beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence of moderate length, so it is not bloated. But the dense, archaic phrasing ('most first, then each address it is for') forces re-reading, and the closing clause about 'booked' is awkwardly appended rather than structured, so the words do not fully earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape; it makes a genuine attempt (upcoming times with eligible addresses, then per-address response status, plus the empty result for booked/closed polls). But the opaque wording leaves the exact structure and ordering only partially recoverable for a read tool an agent must parse.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'poll' is the poll's id. The description only obliquely implies a poll input ('a poll's answers') and adds no format, naming, or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own 'as polls_create names it'.

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?

It opens with a clear verb+resource, 'Read a poll's answers', which distinguishes it from write siblings like polls_book or polls_create. However, the rest of the sentence is written in a convoluted, almost archaic register ('times still to come', 'most first', 'each address it is for') that makes the actual returned content hard to parse on first read.

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 only usage-adjacent information is the conditional 'A booked or closed poll holds none', which hints at when results will be empty but never states when to reach for this tool versus links_polls_list, polls_book, or links_polls_close. No alternatives or prerequisites are named, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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