telegram-get-poll-voters

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint) and open to external changes (openWorldHint). The description adds that the tool is paginated and for public polls, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response structure.

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 sentence with 7 words, front-loading the action and key constraints. No superfluous text; every word adds value.

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 read-only paginated list tool with 5 fully described parameters, the description covers the essential context (public polls, pagination). The absence of an output schema is partially addressed by the clear purpose, but a bit more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (List), resource (users who voted for poll options), and constraints (public polls only, paginated). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram-get-poll-results and telegram-vote-poll.

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 explicitly states the tool works only for public polls, providing a clear usage boundary. It does not name alternatives but the restriction is sufficient for guiding appropriate use.

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