Get Divisions Held In A Debate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds cross-resolution details, that votes_id may be None, and that empty list is not an error. No contradictions, but could mention rate limits or other behaviors.

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?

Well-structured with bold directive and bullet points. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened but effective.

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?

Given output schema exists (not shown), description provides necessary workflow context (two IDs, cross-resolution, post-processing). Does not explain full output fields, but schema handles that.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. Description explains where to get the debate_ext_id (from other tools), adding value beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches divisions (formal votes) for a given debate_ext_id. It distinguishes from siblings like votes_get_division and votes_search_divisions by explaining the returned IDs and the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want the divisions.' Provides context on when divisions typically occur (bill stages, motions) and notes that empty list is honest. Also instructs to pass votes_id to votes_get_division for full records.

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