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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: a rate limit ('Max 3 votes/day per network'), a return behavior ('Returns live results after voting'), and a data-quality caveat ('Self-selected, not a scientific sample'). Fewer details on failure modes, but this is solid added 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 and question are front-loaded, followed by consent constraint, mechanics, result, and limit. Dense but every sentence carries information; no obvious padding.

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, and the description covers the return behavior, rate limit, and consent constraint, which are the key things an agent needs. Only the undocumented 'other'/'agent_name' parameters leave a gap, which is minor against the otherwise rich disclosure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Multi-select' does explain the array nature of the required 'choices' parameter, but the 'other' free-text field and 'agent_name' parameter are never mentioned, leaving two of three params undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb (Vote), the exact resource (Agent Field Kit's poll, quoted question), and its scope. No sibling tool covers polls, so there is no ambiguity; an agent immediately knows what this does.

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?

It states the conditions for use – 'on behalf of the person you act for, only with their consent and with their real answer' – which is explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools are relevant substitutes.

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