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 adds a genuinely non-obvious consequence beyond the flags: the transition is one-way and the poll becomes visible to attendees. It stops short of stating required permissions or what happens to an already-published poll.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the key irreversible consequence front-loaded right after the action statement. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needed to add the state precondition and the irreversibility warning, both of which it does. Missing only authorization requirements and failure behavior for a non-draft poll.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that poll_id must be a draft and event_id comes from search_events. The description adds only the confirming detail that the poll_id must reference a draft; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Publish an existing draft poll') and scopes it to an event, which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like close_poll, reopen_poll, or publish_survey, 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?

'existing draft poll' implies a precondition that the poll must already be in draft state, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never names the adjacent operations (close_poll, reopen_poll) or says when to publish versus close, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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