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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by specifying the granularity of the result — aggregate vote counts only, no individual ballots — which tells an agent what it will and will not receive from the call.

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 zero filler: the primary action and output content come first, followed immediately by the important scope limitation. Every clause carries information.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, and the description covers both input forms and output granularity. It stops short of describing the shape of returned poll options (e.g., slot times, capacity), which matters somewhat since no output schema exists, but the agent has enough to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'poll' parameter is already documented, including the accepted link format and token. The description restates the accepted input forms rather than adding new meaning such as token derivation, error behavior for expired polls, or validation rules; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource pair (poll options and aggregate vote counts), plus the accepted identifier source (asap.golf share link or poll token). An agent can distinguish this read tool from the write-oriented sibling create_tee_time_poll, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is clearly a retrieval operation, and the clause 'Individual ballots are not returned' steers an agent away from expecting per-voter data. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites such as poll state, and no named alternative for related lookups such as search_tee_times.

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