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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely new information — results are computed live from the calendar rule and never stale, two occurrences are returned, and fasts/memorial days carry a 'greetings not customary' note. It stops short of describing pagination or the exact response shape, but adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary behavior (next two dates, computed never stale) front-loaded and the fasts/memorial caveat placed last as a secondary note. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how it is computed, and one important domain caveat. The only meaningful omission is how an agent should discover or validate occasion ids, which the sibling `list_occasions` presumably handles.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents the `occasion` parameter with example ids, so the baseline applies. The mention of Russian vs Hebrew services gives a useful hint about the two families of accepted ids, but no additional syntax or format detail is provided in the description.

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 names a specific resource (a professional day or Jewish holiday) and a specific output (the next date and the one after), plus the guarantee that it is computed from the calendar rule rather than stored. This implicitly separates it from a static list tool, but it never names or contrasts with `list_occasions`, so sibling differentiation is only inferred.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus `list_occasions` or `board_status`, and no guidance on where to obtain a valid `occasion` id — a real gap given the parameter accepts ids like 'avtomobilista'. Usage is only implied by the return-value description.

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