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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool advances a stateful debate, returns the next speaker and their private aim, and eventually signals completion with 'done'. This is useful behavioral context that the false readOnly/idempotent hints only partially convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then loop termination, then flag semantics, followed by a precondition. Every sentence earns its place and the critical usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns (next speaker, private aim, and a done signal) and how to sequence calls. It could say a bit more about what 'done' means or any failure modes, but the core loop is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor clarification for addressed_other and conceded, but these largely restate the schema descriptions. It does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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: submit the line you wrote and receive the next speaker and their private aim. It also distinguishes this from the sibling debate_two_people by framing it as the continuation of an ongoing debate turn.

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?

Explicitly says to keep calling until it returns done, which defines the loop usage. It also states the prerequisite: only reachable after debate_two_people, giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use condition.

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