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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the agent knows it changes state. The description adds useful effect context — it re-enables answer submission for a previously closed poll — but says nothing about required permissions, whether existing answers are affected, or error behavior on an already-open 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its effect with no filler. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists and return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with two fully documented required parameters. The description is nearly complete for that complexity, missing only the preconditions and failure modes of reopening.

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 100%, so poll_id and event_id are already fully documented, including that event_id comes from search_events. The description's only addition is 'for the provided event', which is minimal; baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pair ('Reopen a closed poll') plus the outcome ('attendees can submit answers again'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_poll, close_poll and delete_poll. It stops short of explicitly naming close_poll/reopen_survey as counterparts, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 phrase 'closed poll' implies a prerequisite state (the poll must already be closed), but the description never says what to do if the poll is open or published, nor mentions reopen_survey as the parallel operation. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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