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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what data is returned (holiday dates and make-up work dates) and the supported year range, but does not mention the return format, error behavior for unsupported years, or any read-only guarantees. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but not fully transparent.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output contents, then adds the year limitation. Every clause provides useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately states what the tool returns and which years are valid. It could be slightly more complete by describing the output format, but for a straightforward list operation the core contextual needs are met.

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%, but the description compensates by specifying that the year parameter supports 2025 and 2026, which is meaningful validation context beyond the bare integer schema. It does not exhaustively define the year range, but the supported-year statement significantly clarifies parameter usage.

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 states a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('全部中国法定节假日安排'), and clarifies the scope by specifying it covers both holiday dates and make-up work dates. '支持2025、2026年' bounds the supported years. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query_holiday via the '全部' listing scope.

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 implies usage: use this tool when needing all statutory holiday arrangements for a supported year. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over query_holiday or solar_to_lunar, nor provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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