get_calendar_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails: it does not state that this is a read-only reference lookup, whether the list is static or session-scoped, or anything about caching/rate behavior. 'List all event types' is essentially the only behavioral claim, and it is a tautology of the name.

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 says the same thing three times ('Get calendar event types | event types, calendar classification | List all event types ... | Returns list of event types | Returns: List of ...'), a pipe-delimited keyword dump rather than front-loaded prose. None of the repetitions adds new 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-parameter surface is simple. But the absence of any differentiation from the many sibling type/category/metadata lookups leaves a real gap in a crowded namespace.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level information is expected or missing.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists the event types used in the parliamentary calendar. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_calendar_categories, get_calendar_tags, or especially get_event_type_metadata, so an agent cannot tell from this text which of the four to call.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no prerequisites, no statement of when to prefer this over get_event_type_metadata or get_calendar_categories. The repeated keyword phrases ('event types, calendar classification') read as search optimization rather than usage instruction.

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