get_poll

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds behavior annotations cannot: the results-gating fields and the critical gotcha that 'absent counts mean HIDDEN, never zero.' This is exactly the kind of disclosure that prevents misinterpretation.

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 purpose, then return shape, then sibling routing, then the gating caveat — dense and waste-free. The return-field enumeration is verbose but earned given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it names the key fields, the gating fields, and how to fetch votes. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented ('Poll id or short key', 'Plain text instead of HTML; default false'). The description restates the id/key duality but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('One poll') and its lookup modes ('by numeric id or short key'), immediately distinguishing it from list_polls, create_poll, and update_poll. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context for single-item retrieval and a concrete routing hint for related data ('votes as items: list_thread_items with its topic_id'), which steers the agent to the right sibling for votes. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_polls or states exclusions.

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