get_debate_divisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says the tool returns a list of divisions with aye/noe counts; it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, result size, or permission requirements for a lookup over potentially large debates.

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 purpose and the key parameter note are front-loaded and easy to scan. There is mild redundancy between the opening summary and the Args/Returns block ('Returns list of divisions with aye/noe counts' repeats the summary), but it is short overall.

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 values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is documented with its source. The remaining gap is behavioral (pagination/scope), which matters less for a simple read lookup.

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 identifies debate_section_id as the 'External ID of debate section (from search_hansard)', telling the agent both the expected identifier type and where to obtain it.

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 votes that occurred during a debate') and clarifies with 'divisions (votes) that took place in a specific debate'. It names related siblings (get_division_details, get_commons_division_by_id) but as a bare 'See also' rather than an explicit contrast, so differentiation is present but not sharp.

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 to find divisions (votes) that took place in a specific debate' gives a clear context of use and points to two related tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs search_hansard_divisions or search_commons_divisions), so it is context without exclusions.

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