list_debates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but "List" reasonably implies a read-only enumeration and the phrase "with claim counts and status" discloses part of the response shape even though no output schema exists. It does not say whether all debates are returned, any ordering, or pagination/limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and the returned fields come first. Slightly softened by the vague qualifier "available", which earns no information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description does state what comes back (claim counts, status), which is the main missing structured data. It remains silent on result size, ordering, and how it differs from get_debate_verdicts, which an agent needs to pick correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a no-argument, enumerate-everything call.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List available political debates") with a note on what each entry carries (claim counts and status). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_debate_verdicts, so an agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point rather than the per-debate detail tool.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as get_debate_verdicts (for verdict data) or list_recent_claims (for claim-level data). Usage is only implied by the word "available", leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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