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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: the private organizer link requirement, the /m/ marker, what the return includes, and the tie-breaking rule for the top time. It repeats the non-mutating behavior already covered by annotations, but otherwise adds meaningful disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition, then gives the prerequisite, return behavior, and non-mutation guarantee. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the key context: when to use it, the required private link, what results include, and how the top time is chosen. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single manage_link parameter is already documented with its expected format. The description reinforces that it must be the private organizer link and contains /m/, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: seeing who answered a date poll and which time works best. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools create_date_poll, update_date_poll, and finalize_date_poll, which mutate or finalize the poll rather than show results.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use it when the organizer wants to see poll answers and the best time. It also states the prerequisite of needing the private organizer link containing /m/. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the read-only results purpose is clear enough for correct selection.

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