sendPoll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the success return value (the sent Message) and the native poll/quiz/regular distinction. However, it does not mention side effects, constraints, or mode-specific requirements such as quiz mode requiring correct_option_id, though some of that detail is available in the schema.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the action comes first, followed by the success return value, then supported poll modes. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information. It is well-structured for a tool with a heavily documented input 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?

Given the large 23-parameter schema and no output schema, the description mentions the return value, which is important, and the tool's poll modes. However, it lacks usage guidance, alternative tool comparisons, and behavioral caveats. The rich schema fills in most invocation details, making the description adequate but not fully complete for selection support.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage across all 23 parameters, so the schema already provides thorough parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no coverage gap for the description to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Send a native poll". It also clarifies that it supports regular polls and quizzes, which distinguishes it from generic send methods like sendMessage and from stopPoll. An agent can quickly identify this as the poll-sending 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use sendPoll versus alternative tools, and it does not mention any exclusions or sibling comparisons. The phrase "Supports regular polls and quizzes" implies scope but does not state usage context. An agent must infer that this is the tool to use for native polls.

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