list_polls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns emails with per-email counts, but does not specify pagination, sorting, or whether it mutates data. It also does not mention if it filters by poll type or if it only retrieves emails from received emails. Missing behavioral details like response format and side effects.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and is concise. No filler. However, it could include more helpful context without sacrificing conciseness. The structure is efficient, but the content is thin.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the parameters, return format, pagination, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_poll_results'. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 schema has 3 parameters (after, limit, before) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no meaning beyond types. The description does not explain the purpose or format of these parameters. 'after' and 'before' are likely date filters but unspecified. The description must compensate for the schema gap but does not, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 ('List') and resource ('emails that have in-email poll responses') with per-email counts, and includes the HTTP method (GET /polls). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'get_poll_results' which may overlap in purpose. The verb and resource are clear, but the distinction from siblings is weak.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_poll_results' or 'list_emails'. It does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this is for listing poll responses or for email digests. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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