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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the irreversibility profile is structurally given. The description does add real value by stating the manage-key requirement and that reopening is only possible from the manage link, but it says nothing about failure modes (bad key, already closed) or what 'final results' contains.

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 short sentences with the action and its result front-loaded, followed by the usage caveat. The phrase 'Only when the person asks' is slightly clipped but costs little space and carries the key guidance.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth requirement and irreversibility, which is close to sufficient. It does not describe what is returned in the 'final results' or what happens if the poll is already closed, leaving a small but real gap for an irreversible operation.

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 (poll link-or-id, manageKey) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the manage-key requirement without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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?

'Stop voting on a poll this chat made ... and get the final results' gives a concrete verb and resource, and the parenthetical scoping ('this chat made') narrows it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_results, which also returns results, so an agent must infer the difference from 'stop voting'.

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?

'Only when the person asks' is an explicit usage constraint rather than a vague hint. The description lacks a direct pointer to alternatives (e.g. use get_results to read results without closing), so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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