list_poll_answers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Lists' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description specifies the return content (answer options with vote counts). This is adequate for a simple read tool, though it does not discuss edge cases, authorization, or potential errors.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. No filler or redundant content; every word contributes meaning.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, covering the core need even without an output schema. Minor gaps like exact response format or pagination (unlikely for this tool) are not critical.

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 has 100% coverage for question_id with a basic description ('Question ID'). The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only indirectly tying the question_id to 'a question'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 tool lists all answer options for a question and includes vote counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_poll_participants (participants vs answers) and get_poll_details (poll details vs answer options).

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 (when you need answer options with vote counts) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to consider. Sibling tools like get_poll_details or list_poll_participants are not mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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