Get Divisions Held In A Debate

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) by explaining that most debates contain no divisions and that an empty list is honest. This prevents misinterpretation of empty results as errors. However, annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. Still, the description's note about typical division contexts is helpful.

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 description is extremely concise—three sentences—yet packs all necessary information: purpose, usage instruction, and behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded with the key trigger phrase 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN,' making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool has one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is complete. It covers when to use, what it does, and how to interpret results (empty list). Sibling tool context is provided via parameter chaining instructions. No obvious gaps.

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 input schema already has a detailed description for the single parameter debate_ext_id, including how to obtain it (chain from other tools). The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond stating its use. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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's purpose: 'get divisions (formal votes) held within a debate' given a debate_ext_id. It specifies the resource (divisions within a debate) and verb (get), and distinguishes from sibling tools like parliament_get_debate_contributions by focusing specifically on divisions.

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?

The description explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want the divisions.' It also provides context on when divisions are absent (Business of the House sittings, statements, etc.) and that an empty list is a valid result. This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool and what to expect.

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