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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional behavior (returns the holiday name if the date is a holiday) and notes that the data comes from an authoritative public-holiday dataset, but it does not describe edge cases such as invalid country codes, date format errors, or the exact non-holiday return value.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the dataset credibility note adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 simple lookup tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the input semantics, the condition, and the expected result. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens when the date is not a holiday, but the conditional phrasing already implies no name is returned.

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%, with both date and country_code already described in the input schema. The tool description reinforces that country_code is an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: checking whether a given date is a public holiday in a country and returning the holiday name if so. It identifies the resource (public holiday by country code) and uses specific verbs that distinguish it from the sibling tools, none of which target this function.

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 conveys a clear use case: when you need to know if a date is a public holiday in a specific country. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, so the usage guidance is mainly implied rather than explicit.

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