send_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about side effects—it doesn't mention whether sending requires admin rights, whether polls can be edited later, whether the poll is permanently posted, or what the response looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that creates persistent content in an external system.

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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear. It could arguably add more operational detail while staying concise, but for pure conciseness this is appropriately lean.

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 mutation tool that posts to an external chat with no annotations and no behavioral context, the description is too thin. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the absence of any guidance about message limits, whether the poll appears to all members, or how this relates to edit_message_text to correct a misposted poll leaves the description under-complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema is fully self-documenting with clear definitions for chat_id, options, question, and booleans, including defaults and character limits. The high schema coverage plus defaults for optional parameters makes this well-served without extra description text.

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 'Send a poll to a Telegram chat' clearly states the verb (send), resource (poll), and destination (Telegram chat). It distinguishes from siblings like send_message and send_photo by specifically targeting polls. However, it doesn't elaborate on distinguishing features vs sibling send tools beyond the resource type, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning context or any exclusions. Since this is a Telegram integration with many sibling send/edit/delete tools, the agent receives no differentiation guidance for selection decisions.

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