Get poll results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: voters=true caps at 30 per answer, mirroring how vote counts render in the Skool UI, which sets expectations about truncation. It doesn't discuss rate limits or omission cases, keeping it at 4.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary return content and followed by the optional expansion. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-shape burden: per-answer number, text, vote count, and the caller's own vote, plus the voters cap. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that the returned answer 'number' is the identifier vote_on_poll consumes, and by restating the 30-voter cap on the voters flag. That is real semantic value beyond the schema's terse boolean description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: answers and vote counts of a post's poll, with an explicit optional expansion (who voted for what). It also differentiates itself from the sibling mutation tool by naming vote_on_poll and explaining the link between answer numbers and that tool.

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?

Clear on when to enable the voters expansion and what it yields, and implicitly routes voting actions to vote_on_poll via the answer-number parenthetical. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' statement, so it's strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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