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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a permission requirement not present in annotations, giving extra context about side effects (requires authorization to create). It does not detail post-creation behavior, but given the annotations, the added permission requirement earns a 4.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is placed at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and permission requirement. It does not spell out option count limits, but the schema covers that. For an agent deciding whether to call this tool, the description sufficiently orients it, though edge cases like required fields are left to the schema.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description repeats the 'everyone' vs 'eligible_roles' semantics already in the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since 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 clear verb ('Open') and resource ('a poll in a room'), and the detail about 'everyone' voting versus role restriction distinguishes it from siblings like list_polls and vote. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 explicitly notes the required permission ('Requires can_create_polls'), which is a usage condition. It does not compare against alternatives, but the create-vs-list/vote distinction is implicit from the action. Context for when to use is clear enough.

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