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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds real context beyond them: what the tool produces (a voting link to share and an admin link to close/view results), the live-results behavior, and hard limits (2-30 options, 100 voters, closing must be future). It does not mention permissions/ownership or what happens to an expired 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, then examples, returns, and limits in a tight sequence; every block carries information. The cost is that the entire text is duplicated verbatim in Spanish and English, which roughly doubles length for a bilingual audience without adding new semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by naming both links produced, and it supplies the operational limits an agent needs to avoid failing calls. Remaining gaps (permissions, post-expiry behavior, whether a poll can be edited) are minor for a create-only tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: 'el cierre debe ser futuro' constrains the cierre timestamp, and the 2-30 option / 100-voter limits give context for opciones and the overall capacity. It restates the option count already encoded as minItems/maxItems, which is the only redundancy.

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 ('Crea una encuesta o votación con opciones de texto para compartir con un grupo') plus its key modes (single/multiple, live results, optional close). It does not, however, draw a line against the sibling crear_eleccion_fecha, and its own example 'crea una encuesta de qué día hacemos la reunión' overlaps with that tool's territory.

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?

Three concrete example utterances ('haz una votación para elegir restaurante...', 'qué día hacemos la reunión', 'varias respuestas para elegir actividades') give an agent a clear picture of when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so the boundary against crear_eleccion_fecha remains for the agent to infer.

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