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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no default for the optional 'dagar' parameter, no ordering or result-limit behavior, no return shape. It essentially restates the resource rather than explaining how the tool behaves. The low-risk nature of a calendar read mitigates but does not excuse the gap.

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?

Two short sentences, but the second is a near-verbatim English translation of the first, so roughly half the text is duplicate content that earns no additional place. The purpose is front-loaded, which helps.

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 single-parameter, read-only calendar tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool surfaces, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits what happens when 'dagar' is omitted and how results are ordered, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 100% with a single bounded integer parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the day window or its default beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific resource and scope – the parliament's forward calendar – and enumerates the event types it covers (debates, decisions, question time, committee meetings, hearings). That is far clearer than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as senaste_voteringar or votering, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the vote- or speech-oriented siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The forward-looking framing is implied by 'framåt' but never contrasted with the backward-looking tools.

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