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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding the default stance filter (2+), the 120-row page size, and offset paging behavior. It doesn't state result ordering, which is a minor gap for a browse tool.

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?

Front-loads what is browsed and what is returned, then the query semantics, then the routing exclusion, then defaults and paging. No sentence is wasted and the concrete folding examples (hire/hiring, co-founder/cofounder) clarify a subtle rule efficiently.

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 compensates by naming the returned columns and explaining defaults and pagination. Ordering of results is the only unstated behavior an agent might care about, but otherwise it is complete for a zero-required-param browse tool.

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 description coverage is 100% — limit defaults/max, offset paging, min_claims default, and query folding are all already documented in the schema. The description restates the query matching rule (all words, case-insensitive, folded word forms) but adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (browse) and resource (the debate registry) and enumerates the returned fields (id, question, readings, stance count, born). It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_perspectives, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 states the negative case ('Browsing only — it does not rank against a question') and names the alternative to use instead ('use find_perspectives for that'). Condition and alternative are both given, leaving nothing to inference.

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