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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds what is returned (question, angles, rules) but does not provide further behavioral context such as staleness, dependencies, or response structure. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and its result with no filler. Every word earns its place, making the description as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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?

For a parameterless getter with readOnlyHint, the description names the three substantive parts of the returned data, which is enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note on the expected return shape would improve completeness slightly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema exhaustively documents everything needed. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Agora debate') and enumerates the exact components returned: question, angles, and rules. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like argue or read_transcript, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as argue, get_standing, or read_transcript. The use case is only implied by the tool name and content description, with no stated prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions.

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