send_poll

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that quiz mode supports a correct option and explanation, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, what happens when chat_id is null, or whether quiz requires correct_option_id — significant gaps for a send/mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded and compact — the core action comes first, with the quiz nuance second. The bilingual duplication doubles the length without adding information for a single-language reader, which is the only real waste.

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 output schema means return values need no explanation, and the description covers the poll-vs-quiz distinction. With 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, though, an agent still lacks the detail needed to fill the optional fields confidently.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, yet the description only touches type, correct_option_id and explanation in passing. It never explains chat_id's null default, is_anonymous (default true), allows_multiple_answers, or constraints on options and question length.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('send a poll or quiz card with clickable options') and the Chinese line reinforces the same scope. It is self-evidently distinct from the send_* media/message siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied by the resource type: use it when you want a clickable poll. There is no guidance on when to prefer a poll over send_text_message, no prerequisites, and no note on which chat it lands in.

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