polls_get_voters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return shape, including the `untrusted_text` field and the note that usernames are raw Discord data, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-organized with bold labels for Purpose, Path, and Returns. It front-loads the core purpose, keeps the path separate for clarity, and the return summary is concise with no filler or redundant statements.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent operation with complete parameter documentation and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context. It explains the return format and adds the `untrusted_text` caveat, though it does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema's `after` and `limit` parameters, which is a minor gap.

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 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics by echoing the non-snowflake nature of `answer_id` and showing the path structure, but it does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose line 'List users who voted for a specific answer on a poll' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like polls_end (which ends polls) and other list tools. The scope is precise, referencing a specific answer, channel, and message.

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 a critical usage hint by explicitly noting that `answer_id` is a poll-local integer rather than a snowflake, preventing a likely invocation error. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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