vote

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

With no annotations, the description only states the action (vote) and prerequisites, but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, consequences of re-voting, or error conditions such as invalid choice or expired poll.

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 concise, front-loads the action, and efficiently uses a short overview followed by a bullet-like list of arguments, with no redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks information on failure scenarios (e.g., already voted, invalid choice) and does not explain the voting process in depth, leaving minor 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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful detail for each parameter: selected_choice must be non-empty, card_uri is a poll card URI, tweet_id is the tweet ID, card_name is the poll card name, and source of card_uri/card_name is specified.

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 it votes on an X poll, specifies poll characteristics (2-4 choices, duration), and explains how to obtain necessary metadata via get_tweet, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 clear prerequisites (obtaining card_uri and card_name from get_tweet) and context about poll structure, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling vote tool.

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