get_hansard_linked_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content ('previous and next sitting dates relative to given date'), implying a safe read, but says nothing about permissions, what happens when the date is not a sitting day, or any other edge behavior.

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?

Front-loaded and reasonably short, but the return value is stated twice (in the opening block and again under 'Returns'), and the pipe-delimited tag line adds some noise.

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 not be explained, yet the description documents both parameters well and defines the tool's scope. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only the sibling routing left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents both required params, giving accepted house values ('Commons' or 'Lords', with 1 or 2 also accepted) and the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). This adds real meaning the enum-less anyOf schema lacks, though spacing/validation nuances are absent.

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 ('Get previous and next sitting dates') and clarifies it is relative to a given date, which separates it from the single-direction siblings get_next_sitting_date and get_last_sitting_date. However, it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the descriptions alone.

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 navigate between sitting days' gives an implied use case but offers no when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives like get_sitting_dates, get_next_sitting_date, or get_hansard_last_sitting_date, all of which overlap.

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