poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the poll requires specific chat permissions, whether it posts immediately, whether options are mutable after creation, or what the response contains. Only the option-count constraint is disclosed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and the key constraint front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations, an empty parameter schema, and no output schema, the description is insufficient: it never states which chat is targeted or how the 2-10 options are passed. An agent would have to guess the call signature.

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?

With zero parameters defined and 100% (vacuous) schema coverage, the baseline is a 3-4. The description names inputs that matter (target chat, answer options) but these are absent from the schema entirely, so an agent cannot tell how to supply them; the description hints at parameters without resolving them.

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 ('Create a poll') with a concrete constraint (2 to 10 answer options), and no sibling tool overlaps with poll creation, so it is distinguishable. It stops short of saying where the poll is created or what it returns.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., send or schedule for other message types), and no prerequisites. The 2-to-10 constraint is a validation rule, not usage guidance.

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