linkedin_create_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral traits: poll content is immutable after creation, and content must comply with LinkedIn policy. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate or return-value behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then immediately the two most important warnings, then a compact args list. The args list duplicates schema keys, but with 0% schema coverage that duplication is informative rather than filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers immutability and policy limits but leaves 'visibility' undocumented and says nothing about permissions or what a successful call returns. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents four of five parameters with meaning ('question' is used as post commentary, 'options' must be 2–4, allowed 'duration' values). It omits the 'visibility' parameter entirely, which is the remaining gap.

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 post') plus a distinguishing constraint ('2–4 options'), which separates it from the generic linkedin_create_post sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 gives content-policy constraints ('Do not ask for political opinions, health status, or other sensitive data'), which is a 'when-not' rule of sorts. However, it never says when to choose this tool over linkedin_create_post, nor any prerequisites, so usage guidance is only implied.

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