Get Legislative Calendar

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details output structure (vote windows with provenance/granularity, marketRelevance, significance, verified tickers, pass outlook, conflictBadge), explains that affectedTickers are verified with evidence quotes, and provides caveats about sponsorTradeFacts and lag. This richly discloses behavior.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly tighter, but it is still efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers output fields, special cases (empty calendar, verification of tickers), and interpretation guidance (vote window provenance). It is complete for an agent to understand when to call and how to interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by clarifying defaults (from, to, minRelevance) and explaining the rarely-useful 'none' option for minRelevance. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a forward-looking legislative catalyst calendar for upcoming House/Senate floor votes filtered to market-moving items. It specifies the resource (legislative calendar), action (get), and scope, distinguishing it from other calendar tools like get_earnings_calendar and get_economic_calendar.

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 provides defaults (from=today, to=+14 days, minRelevance=low) and explains the meaning of an empty calendar (normal state, not an error). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative calendars, though sibling tool names imply differentiation.

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