get_committee_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call takes no input and returns the full set of types with descriptions, which is reasonable for a static read-only reference list, but it says nothing about caching, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive/stable.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance. The trailing 'Returns: All committee types with descriptions' is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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 parameterless reference lookup with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool is and when to reach for it. The only real gap is routing among the many other '*_types' siblings, which is not addressed.

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. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema, and there is no parameter behavior that needs explaining.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all types of parliamentary committees') and grounds it with concrete examples (Select Committee, Public Bill Committee, Delegated Legislation Committee). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from adjacent type-lookup siblings such as get_committee_business_types or get_committee_publication_types.

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?

'Use when understanding committee structures or finding the right committee type' gives an implied usage context, but no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this is the lookup to run before filtering committees by type.

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