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

The description adds some behavioral context by listing create and vote actions, and noting bulk support via message_ids. However, it does not clarify the 'flattened action' ambiguity, nor does it explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or what happens after a poll is created. Since annotations provide no hints (all false), the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 brief and well-structured with clear bullet points for actions. It efficiently conveys a considerable amount of information in a compact format. However, the '[Flattened action: create]' line adds unnecessary confusion and could be clarified, slightly reducing the structure's clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'account' parameter, does not resolve the create/vote ambiguity, and provides no guidance on return values or side effects. The bulk support mention is helpful but does not compensate for the overall lack of context.

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 description adds meaning to several parameters by grouping them under actions: create uses to, name, options[] (with the 2–12 constraint), and selectable_count; vote uses chat_jid, message_id, and options[]. This is helpful, but parameters like 'account' and 'message_ids' are only partially addressed (message_ids mentioned in bulk support, account ignored). With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient for full clarity.

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 the tool can 'Send a poll or vote on one,' which is a clear dual-purpose statement. However, the subsequent '[Flattened action: create]' note introduces ambiguity by suggesting only the create action is active, contradicting the earlier mention of voting. This confusion, especially given the existence of a sibling tool whatsapp_poll_vote, makes the purpose less clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that voting could be handled by the separate whatsapp_poll_vote tool, nor does it explain when to use the create vs vote actions within this tool. The only usage hint is 'Bulk support: accepts message_ids for batched execution,' which is a capability note, not a usage guideline.

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