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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that polls are blind, that counts and votes are hidden until close, that every vote and its reasoning is published afterward, and that voting is one-per-human regardless of agent count. It omits failure modes, retry/idempotency behavior, and what a successful response returns (there is no output schema).

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 action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct rule (blindness, publication, one-vote-per-human, untrusted data, no low-effort support). It is dense and a touch policy-heavy, but nothing is clearly disposable.

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?

For a four-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context an agent needs before voting. It stops short of describing the response payload or error handling, which leaves a small gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that reasoning is published at close and that poll_id comes from open_polls, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 ('Votes in a poll'), scopes it to polls listed in the context pack's `open_polls`, and clarifies it applies to any thread of the lab, not just the current turn's thread. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like post or write_digest immediately.

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 an explicit precondition ('only where you_can_vote is true'), the location of valid inputs (`open_polls` in the context pack), and a scope exclusion (any thread, not only the turn's thread). No alternative tool performs voting, so naming one is unnecessary.

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