list_floor_calendars

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It adds useful domain behavior: calendars are 'one per sitting' and 'several calendars can share a date,' which warns against assuming date uniqueness. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, access constraints, or any other runtime behaviors; the presence of an output schema helps but does not fully compensate.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a necessary domain definition and a brief pointer to get_floor_calendar. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details or annotation-style content.

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?

With an output schema present and only two simple parameters, the description is nearly complete: it defines the domain, clarifies cardinality, warns about shared dates, and routes the agent to get_floor_calendar. The main omission is guidance on how to obtain or format session_code, though an agent could infer it from sibling get_current_session/list_sessions.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It only loosely hints at 'session' and does not explain how session_code is formatted or obtained; chamber is only visible as the H/S enum in the schema, and calendar_id is mentioned even though it is not a parameter of this tool. This is a meaningful gap for a two-parameter endpoint.

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 (list) and resource (floor calendars) scoped by chamber and session, and clarifies cardinality with 'one per sitting.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_floor_calendar by pointing out that the latter consumes a calendar_id to retrieve the bills on it.

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 clear context: this tool lists a chamber's floor calendars for a sessionprint, and if you need the bills on a specific calendar, you pass its calendar_id to get_floor_calendar. It does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this over sibling tools like list_dockets or list_meetings, but the handoff to get_floor_calendar gives useful routing guidance.

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