Get poll results

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context—such as what the tallies look like, whether polls must be active, or error behavior—so it contributes nothing beyond the annotation.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core concept with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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?

With no output schema and only a read-only annotation, the description is minimally complete for this simple tool. It states the purpose but omits information about return structure, permissions, or conditions under which it might fail, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 describes guild and channel but leaves message_id without a description. The description's reference to 'poll message' implies that message_id must belong to a poll, addressing the schema gap. However, it offers no additional detail on format or constraints for the other parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving current vote tallies for a poll message. It is specific to polls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_reactions or read_messages, though it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't compare itself to alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools that might serve similar purposes.

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