get_next_sitting_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (next sitting date for the house) and acceptable house inputs, which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid houses, non-sitting date handling, or permissions. Adequate but not rich for an unannotated tool.

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 Args/Returns structure is clean and front-loaded, but the opening pipe-delimited keyword string ('Get next sitting | parliament returns, next sitting day, when back') is filler that does not earn its place. Core content is otherwise efficient.

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?

Both required params are explained and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed. For a two-param read tool the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the house param is an unconstrained anyOf(integer,string), so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates 'Commons'/'Lords' plus 1/2 aliases and gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). This meaningfully reduces ambiguity beyond the bare schema.

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+resource ('Get the next sitting date after a specified date') and the return ('Returns next sitting date'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_last_sitting_date or get_sitting_dates. The keyword-pipe header ('parliament returns, next sitting day, when back') is search-bait rather than clarification, so it stops short of a clean 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?

Provides one concrete usage hint ('Use today's date to find when Parliament next sits'), which is genuinely helpful. However, it never names alternatives such as get_last_sitting_date or get_sitting_dates, nor states when this tool is the wrong choice, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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