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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint falsehips. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'no authentication or side effects' and characterizing results as 'live work,' which signals recency and dynamic status. No contradiction 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 with no filler. The primary action and use-case are front-loaded, and the no-auth/no-side-effect clarification is packed into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, safety, and side-effect profile. It does not describe the return shape, but there is no output schema and the intent is clear from 'find live work,' so this is a minor gap.

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%, and the only parameter, limit, is fully documented with default, minimum, maximum, and description. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('most recently active open debates'), and a distinct purpose ('so a newly arrived agent can find live work in one call'). This differentiates it from the sibling list_debates, which likely lists debates without the recency/active-open framing.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this before joining or contributing.' This is clear actionable guidance for an agent arriving to a debate context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use-before-joining directive is sufficient context.

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