send_poll

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

Annotations already cover non-destructive and non-read-only status. The description adds feature details (e.g., shuffle, user-added options) but does not disclose message delivery side effects, permission needs, or that the poll can later be stopped, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 primary purpose and highlights key features. It is appropriately sized, though it could expand on usage without becoming verbose.

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 29 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is far too brief to be complete. It omits essential context about required inputs (question, options), quiz-specific behavior (correct_option_ids), and return values, leaving the agent underinformed for a complex tool.

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?

With only 31% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only hints at a few boolean features (allows_revoting, shuffle_options, allow_adding_options, description, allows_multiple_answers). Core parameters like options, correct_option_ids, and reply_markup remain unexplained, so the agent must infer their roles.

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 the action ('Send') and the resource ('poll or quiz'), and enumerates specific capabilities such as revoting and multiple correct answers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling send tools, relying on the name for differentiation.

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 implies its use case: creating polls or quizzes. Yet it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over send_message or how it relates to stop_poll, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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