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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the default min-stance filter (2+), the 120-row page size, and how the tail line signals the next offset for paging.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: returned fields first, then filtering, then the routing constraint, then pagination defaults. No redundant or filler clauses; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 listing the result columns, and it covers filtering, default thresholds, and offset-based pagination end to end. An agent has everything needed to call and page it correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with types, bounds, and defaults. The description largely restates that (substring filter, 120 rows, 2+ stances default) without adding new syntax or edge-case meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Browse the debate registry') and enumerates the returned fields (id, question, readings, stance count, born). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_perspectives, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

States the use case ('Browsing only — it does not rank against a question') and names the alternative for the other case ('use find_perspectives for that'). The when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative triad is fully covered.

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