list_choices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description largely restates that with 'read-only coverage only'. The one genuinely additive detail is that voting is unsupported by this server, but nothing is said about ordering, missing courses, or partial results across multiple course_ids.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the capability caveat second. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 only one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Minor omission is how results behave when multiple course ids are supplied.

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% and the single course_ids parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics (e.g., behavior when one id is invalid) beyond the structured field, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Choice ... activities') and clarifies the domain term with '(single-question poll)', which implicitly separates it from list_surveys/list_feedbacks/list_workshops. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

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?

'Voting is not supported by this server -- this tool is read-only coverage only' gives the agent a clear boundary on what it can and cannot do here, preventing a misuse attempt. It offers no named alternative tool for voting, but the scope of use is unambiguous.

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