get_debate_by_external_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only lookup keyed on an external ID and that it returns the matching debate, but says nothing about behavior when no match exists (error vs empty) or any access constraints. An output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required.

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 header line and the trailing 'Returns: Debate matching the external content item ID' restate the same idea, and the pipe-separated keywords duplicate the opening sentence. Front-loaded and readable, but with visible redundancy.

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 two-parameter read lookup with an output schema, the description covers both parameters including the non-obvious house encoding and states the retrieval semantics. Only the not-found behavior is left unspecified.

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, and it does: it documents content_item_external_id and, importantly, the accepted house values ('1 or Commons, 2 or Lords') which the schema's bare anyOf of integer/string does not convey. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. no format hint for the external ID).

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 ('Get a debate') and scopes it to the external content item ID, which separates it from the many sibling lookups like get_debate_by_id, get_debate_by_title and get_debate_by_column. It is clear but never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred from the key type rather than stated.

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 an external content item ID to retrieve the specific debate' gives a usable trigger condition. However, in a family of near-identical debate lookups it never says when to prefer this over get_debate_by_id/title/column, so routing relies on the agent reading the parameter names.

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