list_sessions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the reference history reaching back to 1994 and explains the return format (code examples). It does not disclose whether the endpoint returns an empty list for years before 1994, requires an API key, or enforces a maximum year; these are typical gaps for a list tool without annotations.

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 short (2-3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds concrete examples and the historical range. No filler words or verbosity; the examples earn their place by making the session-code format concrete.

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?

There is an output schema available, so the description need not explain the return shape in detail. The main gaps are not explaining the valid year range, not stating the relationship/alternatives to get_current_session, and no error behavior or API-key context. For a one-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is acceptable but not complete.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'year' and type 'integer' with 0% coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. The description explicitly states that year corresponds to a calendar year and shows how codes are built from it (20261 = 2026 Regular Session), which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. It could specify the supported range or that only years 1994+ are valid, but the core semantics are covered.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('Legislative sessions for a calendar year') and gives concrete code examples. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from get_current_session, but the mention of a calendar-year list versus a 'current' session is clear enough for an agent to infer the difference.

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?

Implied usage: supply a calendar year to get that year's session codes. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor a pointer to get_current_session for the current session. The examples help, but the guidance is thin given that sibling tools like get_current_session exist.

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