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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: personal link updates existing answers and preserves untouched dates and earlier comments unless a new one is given, plain share link appends a new response and returns a personal link, and no email is sent except the organizer notice. This is exactly the write-semantics detail the readOnlyHint=false/non-idempotent annotations leave open.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core action and the safety constraint before the link-type mechanics. No filler sentences, though the final clause about email notice is slightly convoluted in phrasing.

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 elaboration, yet the description still notes the returned personal link. Together with the mutation, comment-preservation and date-keying semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: dates are keyed by ISO day as get_poll reports them, `all` answers every date at once, and a per-date answer overrides `all`. That precedence rule and the link/name interaction are not in the schema.

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 ('Answers a When Works For You poll on someone's behalf') and immediately frames it as acting for another person, which distinguishes it from get_poll (read) and set_my_availability (self). The scope and the answer domain (yes/maybe/no per date) are explicit.

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?

Gives a strong usage constraint — only answer for the person being helped, using availability they gave or confirmed, never guess — and explains the two link-type conditions that select different behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as set_my_availability, but the 'someone's behalf' framing implicitly routes the agent.

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