tg_poll

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context: the platform rejects private-chat polls, and anonymous=false modifies vote visibility. No contradiction with 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?

Two lead sentences then a compact Args block. No fluff, each line adds meaning, and the most important scope constraint appears up front.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description defines the operation, every parameter, and a critical platform limitation. It omits minor constraints (e.g., range of quiz_answer, mutual exclusivity with multiple), but these are inferable or edge-case. Substantially complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It glosses all six parameters, adding semantic layers: chat restricted to group/channel, multiple allows several answers, quiz_answer turns it into a quiz, anonymous=false reveals voter identities. Some constraints such as quiz_answer's valid range are left implicit, but the coverage is adequate.

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 and resource: 'Post a poll (2-10 options)'. This clearly distinguishes it from generic messaging siblings like tg_send and tg_send_file. The platform constraint about private chats further characterizes the tool's scope.

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 includes an explicit platform constraint: 'Telegram refuses polls in private chats', which tells the agent not to use the tool for private chats and implies group/channel usage. It does not name alternative sibling tools for general messages, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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