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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: confirming closes voting, triggers outbound email to every guest on autopilot polls, and carries a distinct permission requirement per poll type. This clarifies the destructive, non-idempotent side effects declared by the hints rather than restating them.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the mode-specific consequences. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers side effects, permissions, and the terminal nature of the action. The only real gap is that the four input parameters remain entirely undocumented.

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 0% across all four parameters (time, message, event_id, dateOptionId), and the description never names or explains any of them. An agent gets no help understanding what time or message do, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (confirm/lock in) and resource (the winning date for a live event) plus the consequence (ending voting). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like set_date_time, add_dates, or respond_to_poll without opening any 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?

Explains the two poll modes and what each requires, which is effectively a when-to-use context: autopilot polls need the send permission and mail guests, classic polls only need write permission. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a 'do not use if' condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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