get_non_sitting_days

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return scope ('Non-sitting days in the date range') but nothing about permissions, response shape, or edge cases. An output schema exists, which lowers the bar, so this is adequate but thin.

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 purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by structured Args/Returns blocks. The Args section largely mirrors the schema but is justified given 0% schema coverage; overall it is efficient with no filler.

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?

All three required params are documented, usage context and the sibling alternative are given, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The only gap is the absence of behavioral detail (e.g., whether non-sitting days are returned as a list of dates or ranges) that annotations would otherwise have covered.

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 it does: it explains that house accepts 'Commons'/'Lords' or the integers 1/2 (resolving the schema's opaque anyOf of integer|string) and that start_date/end_date use YYYY-MM-DD format. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not clarify range/inclusivity behavior.

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 periods when Parliament is not sitting') and parenthetically enumerates the semantic scope (recesses, holidays). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_sitting_dates, which it explicitly references.

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?

The description gives clear usage context ('Use when you need to know when Parliament is on break, recess periods, or when no parliamentary business is scheduled') and names the complementary sibling via 'See also: get_sitting_dates.' It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative-selection rule, so it falls just short of a 5.

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