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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context by describing the structure of the returned debate: stakes, guidance, and resolvable author library IDs on either side.

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 first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and return contents clearly. The subsequent list of 38 known slugs is long but earns its place by compensating for the lack of an enum in the schema.

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?

Given the output schema, read-only annotations, and full schema description coverage, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It explains the returned entity and supplies valid slug values, which is more than sufficient for a single-required-parameter read 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description significantly adds value by listing known valid debate slugs. Since the parameter has no enum, this compensates by giving the agent concrete examples of accepted values.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns one named debate between poles argued by books on a capability guide, including stakes, guidance, and sided library IDs. It clearly describes the entity type and contents, but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_guide or get_answer.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve a single debate by slug, and the description supplies a list of known slugs. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_guide or choose_camp, nor does it mention invalid slug behavior.

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