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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — the pricing model (poll unlock $1, asker posts $1–$5, reader unlock $1, answers free) — which is genuinely useful economic context. But it omits return shape, pagination, and the safe read-only nature of a list operation.

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 short, and the lead sentence is front-loaded and earns its place. But the mid-section devolves into cryptic fragments ('bathroom-minutes, sleep-hours, and commute-minutes are seed sample SKUs, not the product') whose relevance is unclear, so not every sentence clearly earns its 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the essentials (purpose, teaser count, pricing) are mostly present. Still missing are what a poll entry actually contains and any listing limits/pagination, leaving the agent without a full picture of the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no per-argument semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing spurious about arguments.

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 opening sentence states a clear verb+resource ('List polls with a teaser count'), which is enough for an agent to know what the tool returns. However, the remainder drifts into pricing and an obscure seed-SKU clarification rather than sharpening the purpose or contrasting cleanly with siblings like get_results or unlock_poll.

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 line 'Use list_catalog to see asks too' is a weak routing hint toward a sibling for a related-but-different resource, implying when to reach elsewhere. It stops short of any when-to-use/when-not conditions or prerequisites, leaving usage largely to inference.

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