get_poll_details

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 only says 'Gets', which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it is non-mutating, mention any required permissions, rate limits, or return format details. The addition 'including questions' gives a hint about content but insufficiently discloses behavior.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes value without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not adequately detail the return payload or edge cases. It mentions questions but not other potential fields like answers or metadata, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the response.

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 descriptions are 100% coverage, providing basic meaning for both poll_id and company_id. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'full details of a poll', with the added scope 'including questions', which distinguishes it from list_polls and other poll-related siblings. However, 'full details' is somewhat vague, lacking a definitive list of what is included beyond questions.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single poll's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_polls or get_poll_participants. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the context is only implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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