Send Poll

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

Annotations already cover the basic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description does not add any behavioral context such as delivery semantics, potential delays, side effects, or failure conditions, offering no value beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple action, though the lack of any additional context makes it slightly under-specified, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the annotations and complete schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not disclose return behavior or success/failure indicators, and it omits any mention of prerequisite conditions (e.g., WhatsApp connectivity), leaving some context 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters (e.g., number format, options count, max_selections default). The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema carries the full burden, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific action (send) and resource (WhatsApp poll) with a recipient. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_text or send_media, the term 'poll' is a distinct WhatsApp message type, providing enough specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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