council_poll

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 delivers: the blind/no-bloat design, the meaning of DONE vs RUNNING statuses, the progress object details, long-poll early-return behavior, and the 'returning early' optimization. This is far more transparent than most API descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains return behavior and long-poll mechanics, followed by a usage paragraph. Every sentence adds new information—no repetition or filler. Despite being detailed, it remains tight and well-organized, earning a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: return types, status semantics, polling behavior, and the follow-up flow to council_answer. It even addresses the edge case of a short first poll burning turns. This makes the tool fully usable without external documentation.

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, so the description must compensate. It directly explains wait and timeout: 'With wait=True this long-polls up to timeout seconds' and 'timeout >= 360' for the first poll. It even explains the benefit of a large timeout. council_id is self-explanatory from the schema and context. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'Poll a council for seat STATUS ONLY'. It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like council_answer by noting that it strips model names and answer bodies, focusing purely on status. This is not a vague or tautological statement; it precisely defines the tool's scope.

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 guidance is explicit and actionable. It tells the agent to call repeatedly until done=true, then fetch answers with council_answer. It also provides concrete timeout recommendations: 'FIRST poll: use timeout >= 360' and explains why, and notes subsequent polls can be shorter. This goes well beyond vague usage hints.

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