get_debate_speakers

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 does disclose the return shape ('List of members who spoke in the debate') and that the input comes from search_hansard, but it omits read-only framing, ordering, and whether it fails on invalid/unknown section IDs. Adequate, not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then arg provenance and return. Slightly redundant ('list of speakers' appears in the header, usage, and Returns sections), but nothing is padded.

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 detailed, and the description still summarizes them. The key missing piece for a single-param lookup is how to obtain debate_section_id — which it partially addresses by naming search_hansard.

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 explains debate_section_id is an 'External ID of debate section' and points to search_hansard as the source. It stops short of stating format or validation behavior.

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 list of speakers in a debate') and scopes it to a single debate, which distinguishes it from day-level siblings like get_hansard_speakers_for_day. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied 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 to see who participated in a specific debate' gives a clear context for use, but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives (e.g. search_hansard vs get_debate_by_id vs get_hansard_speakers_for_day). The guidance is present but minimal.

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