Send a WhatsApp poll

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is captured. The description adds critical behavioral context: the cannot-read-votes limitation and the need to ask user for outcomes. It also implies sending is immediate and non-idempotent, but the openWorldHint=true is not addressed. The insight about votes not being readable is a valuable addition beyond annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key caveat about votes. It could be slightly more structured but is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage context. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the interaction with the user (e.g., after sending, wait for user report), but the description implies it. The output is not relevant since there is no output schema. The tool is complete for its purpose.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable. The multi_select parameter is clear from the schema, and the description does not need to restate it.

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 'Send a poll to a chat' is specific with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing send_poll from send_message and send_media. It also clarifies the interaction model (participants vote in WhatsApp) which is unique to this tool.

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 does not explicitly mention when not to use it vs alternatives, but it clearly states the polling context. It could have named a sibling like send_message as an alternative, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select send_poll when a poll is needed. No explicit exclusions in the description, but the 'ask the user to report outcome' implies a limitation.

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