search_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content ('Parliamentary calendar events in the date range') and that both chambers are covered, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or how large a date range is tolerated — meaningful gaps for a search endpoint with zero annotation coverage.

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 is front-loaded, followed by Args and Returns blocks that are easy to scan. The standalone 'House: Commons/Lords.' sentence duplicates the Args entry, and 'what's scheduled in Parliament' mildly restates sentence one, so there is minor waste.

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, and the description still briefly covers them. For a simple 3-required-param search with 0% schema coverage, purpose, usage context, and all three parameters are addressed; only edge-case behavior (invalid format, range limits) is unstated.

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 largely does: it documents the accepted house values ('Commons' or 'Lords', with 1 or 2 also accepted) and the YYYY-MM-DD date format for both dates. It does not clarify whether end_date is inclusive or how the range is bounded, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Search parliamentary calendar') and scopes it to 'upcoming events and business in either chamber.' The 'See also' line names three siblings (get_parliamentary_diary, get_sitting_dates, happening_now_in_commons), which lets an agent distinguish this from adjacent calendar/sitting tools.

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 'Use when you want to know what's scheduled in Parliament, upcoming debates, or future parliamentary business' sentence gives clear usage context. It also lists alternatives, but does not state when to pick which alternative (e.g., diary vs. sitting dates vs. this tool), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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