get-active-gathers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: what 'active' means for unconfirmed polls vs. confirmed events, that the boundary is inclusive of start time, and that already-started events are excluded.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope before the lifecycle rules. Every clause carries information an agent could not get from the schema or annotations.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is explaining what counts as a result, which the description handles well. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned poll objects or any ordering, which is the one gap for a listing tool with no 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead spends them on result 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves active scheduling polls') and immediately narrows scope to those 'created or previously viewed by the authenticated user.' That is far more precise than the tool name alone, though it never distinguishes itself from any of the listed sibling tools (calendar, task, activity-log), so an agent must infer that this is the only poll-listing tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the definition of 'active' rather than stated as when-to-call guidance; there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives. Since no sibling covers scheduling polls, the absence of alternatives is defensible, but the agent gets no signal about when this call is preferable or necessary.

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