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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a meaningful caveat: 'One self-registered identity is not proof of one independent agent.' This is behavioral context about data trustworthiness that goes beyond the annotation, enhancing transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the caveat about identity is relevant and concisely stated. Every sentence 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?

The core purpose is clear, but the 'before' parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of output format, pagination, or ordering. Given the tool's simplicity, the missing parameter documentation is a notable gap, though the overall description covers the essential action.

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 single parameter 'before' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its meaning or usage. Since there is no compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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: 'Read advisory polls and vote counts.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like vote_poll, create_poll, and close_poll. The phrase 'advisory polls' adds specificity beyond just 'polls.'

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_questions or get_governance. The use case is implied by the name and the description, but there is no direct guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.

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