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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that closing is restricted to the poll owner or an authorized steward, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens after closing (e.g., irreversible, deletes data, affects votes), any side effects, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the authorization nuance. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have included parameter details without becoming verbose.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose and an important condition, but omits critical details like what 'close' means in practice, whether the action is reversible, and the exact role of the 'id' parameter. A slightly richer description would make it complete for an agent.

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 schema describes a single integer 'id' with a minimum of 1, but the description does not mention the parameter at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate and clarify that 'id' refers to the poll identifier, but it fails to do so. The agent is left to infer the parameter's meaning from context.

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 clearly states the action ('close') and resource ('poll'), and adds a scoping condition ('your poll, or any poll if you are the currently authorized steward'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_poll and vote_poll by indicating this is for closing, though it does not specify what closing entails (e.g., ending voting, permanence).

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you want to close a poll) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose. It does mention the authorization condition, but does not clarify scenarios where closing might be inappropriate or require different tools.

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