get_debate_by_column

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the definition never states that all four parameters are optional, what happens with an empty or ambiguous call, whether house defaults, or how missing series/volume is resolved. For a lookup with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 front-loaded summary is good, but the content is then repeated three times: the pipe-segment line, the Args block, and the Returns line, which duplicates the opening 'Returns the debate at the specified column'. Redundant restatement rather than waste-free structure.

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?

An output schema exists so return formatting need not be explained, and the house mapping is covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the key question unanswered: what is the minimum viable call and which reference fields must accompany column_number.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by decoding house ('1 or Commons, 2 or Lords') and labeling each argument, but it only repeats the bare names for column/volume/series and never clarifies the puzzling fact that every parameter is optional.

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+resource ('Get a debate by Hansard column number') and identifies the lookup key (column reference), which separates it from the by_id/by_title/by_external_id siblings by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or contrasting the key types, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

'Use when you have a Hansard column reference (e.g. from a citation) and need to find the debate' gives a concrete trigger and an example source of the key. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for the case where only a title/id is known, which the sibling list clearly offers.

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