get_poll

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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining how vote visibility depends on result_mode, distinguishing public and hidden modes.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the purpose, and avoids fluff. The opening return summary and the detailed return list are slightly redundant, but both serve to orient and specify precisely.

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 two-parameter read-only getter, the description is complete: it explains both parameters, describes the response fields, and covers the result_mode visibility behavior. The output schema further covers the return shape, so nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema provides no descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: token is the conversation token obtainable via list_conversations, and poll_id is found in chat messages when the poll is created. This adds meaning the schema alone lacks.

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-resource pair ('Get a poll from a Talk conversation') and then details what the returned poll details include. This clearly differentiates it from sibling poll operations like create_poll, vote_poll, and close_poll.

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?

It gives concrete guidance for both parameters: use list_conversations to find the token, and poll IDs appear in chat messages. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, but the read-only context and provenance guidance are sufficient for an agent to know when to call it.

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