get_poll

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does warn that include_slots can return hundreds of entries and clarifies timezone affects labels, but it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only network fetch or describe failure behavior for invalid URLs/polls.

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?

A one-line summary is followed by a compact Args block with no redundant prose. Every sentence carries useful information, including the scale warning about slot indices.

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 an output schema present and all three parameters documented, the description is functionally sufficient to call the tool correctly. It lacks only a brief relationship note to sibling tools and explicit error/network caveats, which keep it from a 5.

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 0%, but the Args section compensates fully: url gets a concrete example, timezone gets an IANA example, and include_slots explains the large-output consequence. This adds real meaning beyond the JSON schema's bare property names and defaults.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (load) and resource (when2meet poll) and lists the returned data: title, participants, time range, and optional slot grid. This clearly differs from sibling tools that compute or submit availability, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 sentence states when to call get_poll versus siblings like find_common_availability or preview_availability, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage signal is the implied retrieval role, which is not enough guidance for tool selection.

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