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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing a real limitation beyond that: voting is not supported by this server, so the agent knows not to pursue a write path elsewhere. It stops short of describing multi-course aggregation behavior or error handling for invalid course ids.

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 very short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the limitation. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The description covers purpose, scope, and the read-only limitation. A minor gap remains around whether results are grouped by course or flattened, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'course_ids'. The description only restates the cardinality ('one or more courses'). Baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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 precise verb and resource ('List Choice activities') and disambiguates the resource by glossing it as a 'single-question poll', which separates it from the many other list_* sibling tools (list_surveys, list_feedbacks, list_quizzes). The scope ('across one or more courses') tells the agent it operates multi-course in a single call.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs read-only visibility into Choice activities. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g., how this differs from list_surveys for multi-question polls). The 'voting is not supported' clause is a capability boundary, not routing guidance.

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