BetaSeries: polls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals HTTP methods (GET/POST), implying read vs write, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or why two operations appear to have identical descriptions ('get-polls-last' and 'get-polls-target' both state 'Display the latest active poll'). This ambiguity is a transparency gap.

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-organized as a bulleted list, with each operation on a separate line and front-loaded with the core instruction. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the duplicated description for 'get-polls-last' and 'get-polls-target' is redundant and could be terser.

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 description covers all operation names, endpoints, and parameters, which is essential given five operations and no output schema. However, it does not describe return values (only vague 'Display ...' statements), error handling, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied contexts.

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's 'params' object is generic (string key/value pairs), so the description provides all necessary parameter semantics per operation, including optionality markers ('?'), default values ('nbpp? Number of results per page, default 10'), and acceptable values (e.g., 'type? Target type (episode or show)'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of specificity.

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 it calls the BetaSeries 'polls' API and lists five specific operations with HTTP methods and paths (e.g., 'get-polls-last [GET /polls/last]'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other resources.

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 instructs the agent to 'Pick an operation and pass its parameters in the params object' and lists each operation with its parameters, but it does not provide guidance on when to choose one operation over another (e.g., 'get-polls-last' vs 'get-polls-target' both say 'Display the latest active poll') or mention prerequisites like authentication for write operations.

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