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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior: results are a bounded sample (up to 4 debates, 36 stances), the graph does not encode opposition so the agent must infer it, hedged claims must stay hedged, and each stance carries speaker, date, strength, scope qualifiers and a receipt. This is rich disclosure well beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the size suits a tool with this much behavioral nuance. A few procedural sentences (formatting the receipt, altitude matching) are dense but each carries usable instruction, so little is wasted.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: result counts, per-stance fields, receipt format, sampling caveat, and the follow-up call. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the results.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'topic'. The description adds only marginal interpretive value ('respect the question's altitude'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Route a founder's dilemma to the debates that genuinely bear on it'), so the agent knows this maps a question to matching debates. It distinguishes from get_stances by naming that sibling as the way to get complete stances. It does not differentiate from list_debates or trace_evolution, so it falls short of full sibling-level clarity.

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?

It gives real routing criteria ('debates that genuinely bear on it'), states the fallback when coverage is thin ('advise from general knowledge rather than stretching a weak match'), and names get_stances as the alternative for full stances. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to list_debates or trace_evolution, but the context for use is clear.

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