list_debates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by explicitly stating no account or token is needed and that participation counts are included. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and key context with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the return content (debates and participation counts) and auth requirements. It lacks discussion of pagination or response shape, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and strong annotation coverage.

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, but it provides no explanation of limit or status. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic detail about status values, default behavior, or how limit affects results, leaving an agent without enough guidance beyond the raw schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('current debates') plus an additional distinctive detail ('participation counts'), making it easy to tell apart from siblings like list_contributions. It clearly identifies what the tool does.

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 provides clear context: it is a public, read-only operation requiring no account or token, which signals when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'for contributions, use list_contributions instead.'

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