get_hansard_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (a list of sitting dates that have Hansard) and that house/month/year scope the result, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether non-sitting days are omitted versus returned empty.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first lines before the Args/Returns blocks. The pipe-delimited keyword list is mild clutter and the Returns line partly duplicates the output schema, but overall it is compact and readable.

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 3-required-param read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and every parameter including the ambiguous house encoding. The main gap is sibling disambiguation, which matters given the dense calendar/Hansard tool cluster.

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 and largely does: it documents all three parameters and, crucially, gives the house encoding ('1 or Commons, 2 or Lords') that the schema's bare anyOf integer/string leaves ambiguous. Year and month examples are helpful but thin.

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 and resource with scope ('all sitting dates for a month') and clarifies the Hansard-availability angle, so an agent knows it is a calendar lookup. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like get_sitting_dates, get_next_sitting_date, or get_non_sitting_days.

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 to discover which days have Hansard records available' gives one positive use case, which is more than nothing. But it offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent away from overlapping siblings such as get_sitting_dates or search_hansard.

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