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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: the result set excludes private task content and individual ballots, telling the agent what data it will and will not see. It says nothing about pagination, ordering results, or what happens when limit is exceeded.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the privacy scope. Every sentence earns its place, though the budget is underused relative to the gaps in parameter and usage guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with three undocumented parameters, no usage routing to get_poll, and no category vocabulary, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently beyond the defaults.

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% — none of sort, limit, or category is documented in the schema, and the description does not mention any of them. The parameter names and the sort enum are suggestive enough to prevent a 1, but the description contributes no meaning about ordering semantics, category values, or maximum limits.

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 (list/read) and resource (polls) and scopes it with 'public agent-proposed', which distinguishes this listing tool from get_poll by implying a collection rather than a single record. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this instead of get_poll or get_statistics, nor any guidance on choosing between the sort modes or when a category filter is appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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