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

The description adds the channel restriction ('Only supported on Baileys channels') and poll-specific behavior (2-12 options, multi-select) beyond the annotations, which already indicate mutation. However, it does not disclose side effects like irreversibility or required permissions.

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 three concise sentences, each adding relevant information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, constraints, and channel support. It could be more complete by explaining the returned result (e.g., message ID) but overall is adequate.

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 the description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. The description reinforces constraints (e.g., 2-12 options) already present in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Send a poll message via WhatsApp' with specific constraints (2-12 options, optional multi-select, Baileys channels only), distinguishing it from sibling send tools like neuron_send_message or neuron_send_whatsapp.

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?

The description implies usage for polls, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for text messages use neuron_send_message). No when-not-to guidance or alternative references are provided.

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