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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention that the poll is posted immediately and visibly to the chat, whether it can be recalled, or what happens on failure, which is a notable gap for a destructive, non-idempotent send.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — there is no structure or detail to speak of.

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?

This is a 5-parameter, 4-required, destructive write with no output schema, and the description gives no information on poll constraints, recipient scope (group vs. individual chat_id), or result behavior. An agent could call it, but only by leaning entirely on the schema and annotations.

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 every parameter including options and multiple_answers is documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional semantics such as limits on the number of options or how multiple_answers behaves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Send a poll') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like whatsapp_send_message, whatsapp_send_location, and whatsapp_send_contact. It stops short of naming those siblings or the scope of the send, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus whatsapp_send_message or the other send_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that 'poll' implies structured options rather than free text.

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