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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is adequately covered. The description itself adds no extra behavioral caveats such as open-world variability, return shape, or pagination, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It immediately communicates the action and scope.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool, this is minimally sufficient, but it does not specify what the returned poll list contains or address filtering or ordering. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the result would improve completeness.

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?

The single room parameter has 100% schema coverage and is already described as 'Slug of the room.' The description's phrase 'in a room' adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('polls') scoped to a room, which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_poll, vote, or list_rooms. It largely restates the tool name, but the room scoping makes the purpose concrete.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to see existing polls in a room. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as create_poll or vote.

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