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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add value. It does by disclosing that the tool returns two URLs (voteUrl and adminUrl), clarifies that voters need no account, and mentions the mode differences (duel/swipe) which are behavioral. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and the second gives usage context and key output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy. It's front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given 5 parameters (2 required), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description effectively covers the essential context: what to use it for, the core output (two URLs), and key behavioral nuances like voter account requirement and mode differences. It's complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds extra value by explaining that 'mode' has two behaviors (duel vs swipe) and mentions the return URLs, which are not in the schema. It also clarifies the use case for public vs private visibility, although some of that is in the schema. Overall, it goes slightly beyond the schema to enhance understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a photo poll, specifies the resource (photo poll) and its purpose (to ask which option to pick), and distinguishes it from siblings (get_poll, get_poll_results) by focusing on creation rather than retrieval. The verb 'create' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it whenever the user is torn between things they can show a picture of' with concrete examples (outfits, furniture, etc.), which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but given siblings are retrieval tools, the distinction is implicit. It also notes that voters need no account, which adds context.

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