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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: it returns positions with attribution and dates (episode publication dates), preserves hedged claims, groups by reading, and explicitly does not provide opposition relationships. This goes well beyond what annotations convey and fully discloses output characteristics.

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 sentences deliver dense, relevant information without waste. The core purpose is stated first, followed by output behavior and a key limitation. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 fully specifies what the tool returns: stances grouped by reading, with attribution and dates, no synthesis, and no opposition mapping. It also clarifies the intended use case. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter debate_id is already well-documented with origin and example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, so the baseline of 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 description clearly states the tool returns every stance on a single debate, grouped by reading, and explicitly distinguishes it from synthesis or analysis. The verb 'get' and resource 'stances on a debate' are specific, and the phrase 'No synthesis' sets it apart from sibling tools like find_perspectives or trace_evolution.

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 conveys when to use this tool: as raw material for the agent's own push-back analysis, not for pre-digested conclusions. It also warns that the graph does not say who opposes whom, implying the agent must do that reasoning itself. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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