message_getPollVotes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: returning null if the message does not exist or is not a poll. However, it does not mention any other behavioral details such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles expired polls, or the structure of the results. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and includes the most important edge-case behavior (null return) without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple getter with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the null return behavior. However, it does not specify the shape of the returned 'poll vote results,' which could be helpful since there is no output schema, but the tool's name and intent make it reasonably clear.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (coverage 100%), so the description need not add parameter-specific details. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is already structured.

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 the action ('Get poll vote results for a message with a poll') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling message tools (e.g., message_getReactions) by focusing specifically on poll votes, and even notes the null return condition, which sharpens the purpose.

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 when to use the tool: when you need poll vote results for a message that contains a poll. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. Sibling tools cover other aspects (reactions, info), so a user can infer the appropriate selection.

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