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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit by adding the actual behavioral consequence (answer submission is blocked) and by pointing at reopen_poll, which signals the change is reversible. It does not address what happens if the poll is already closed or whether an error/rate limit applies, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences: the state-changing effect is front-loaded, and the recovery path follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the title.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and both required params are documented, so the definition is essentially callable as written. The only gap is behavior on an already-closed poll, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema itself (poll_id as UUID of the published poll, event_id as an Event UUID from search_events). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close a published poll') plus the concrete effect ('so no new answers can be submitted for the provided event'), which lets an agent distinguish it from delete_poll, publish_poll, and the survey equivalents without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('Use reopen_poll to allow answers again'), giving clear when/when-not guidance. It does not discuss other plausible alternatives such as delete_poll or unpublishing, so it falls short of fully exhaustive routing guidance.

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