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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description earns credit by disclosing what the payload contains (attributed paraphrased voices with dates and source links, the strongest case against each side, resolution tests), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, each doing distinct work: the first routes invocation, the second enumerates the return shape. It is front-loaded with 'Use when' and contains no filler or repeated annotation content.

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 must convey the return shape and does so thoroughly, including provenance (dates, source links) and the 'what would change a side's mind' element. Only the absence of any sibling-routing or fallback guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already carries slug and part semantics. The description only restates 'one story by slug or part number' and adds no selection guidance on when to prefer part over slug, so baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource: it returns the sides of a story (DeepStack Call, attributed voices per side, strongest counter-case, crossing voices, dated tests) keyed by slug or part number. The scope is unmistakable, but the description never contrasts itself with sibling tools like deepstack_counter or deepstack_docket, leaving that disambiguation to inference.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: bull/bear case, who disagrees with a thesis, the counter-argument, what would change a side's mind. That is concrete when-to-use guidance, but it names no exclusions and does not point to an alternative sibling when those triggers overlap (e.g. deepstack_counter).

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