poll_published_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the legacy status, the forced poll behavior, the empty engagements result, and the underlying cause (r_member_social being CLOSED). It does not discuss side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple one-parameter tool this covers the critical behavioral outcomes.

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, dense sentence that contains the purpose, legacy warning, behavioral consequence, and an alternative recommendation. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the essential context: what it does, why it's legacy, what result to expect (empty engagements), and the preferred alternative. It lacks a detailed response shape, but the empty-engagements warning largely compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 0% description coverage and only one required integer parameter 'id'. The description mentions 'sur un PublishedLeadMagnet', which implies that 'id' refers to the PublishedLeadMagnet's ID, but it does not explicitly state this mapping. Given the low schema coverage, the description adds some context but could be more explicit about the parameter's semantics.

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 states the tool's action: 'Force un poll Community API immédiat sur un PublishedLeadMagnet' (force an immediate Community API poll on a PublishedLeadMagnet). It specifies the verb 'force', the resource 'PublishedLeadMagnet', and the scope 'immédiat'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming 'paste_comments' as the preferred alternative.

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 explicit usage guidance: it labels the tool as 'legacy', states that it 'retournera des engagements vides' (will return empty engagements), explains why ('r_member_social est CLOSED'), and directly recommends 'préférer paste_comments'. This clearly tells the agent when not to use it and which sibling to choose instead.

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