Get poll results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds only the scope 'poll message' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements or behavior for closed polls. It meets the baseline with annotations present but adds limited value beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the key information without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not describe the return structure of the vote tally (e.g., per-option counts, total votes). With zero schema coverage and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition lacks necessary invocation details. The presence of readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations partially offset the safety concerns, but the description is still under-specified for a 3-parameter tool.

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% and the description does not explain what 'peer', 'messageId', or 'accountId' mean. The phrase 'poll message' gives a minimal hint that messageId refers to a poll message, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation. An agent would have to rely on sibling tool conventions to understand the 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and a clear resource 'current vote tally for a poll message', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_poll, vote_poll, and close_poll by focusing on reading results rather than creating or modifying polls.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving poll results, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_message or get_message_reactions, nor does it state when not to use this tool. This is clear context without exclusions.

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