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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what the response contains (e.g., holiday names and dates), whether observed holidays are included, or how the optional year parameter behaves. For a simple lookup tool these gaps are notable but not severe.

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 short sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core resource, though its terseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than harming conciseness.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the response format and does not clarify that the year defaults to the current year, which would help an agent call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented as 'country' (ISO code) and 'year' (default current). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 identifies the resource ('Public holidays') and its scope ('for a country'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings like business_days or date_calc, but the core function is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as business_days, week_number, or date_calc. The description also does not state any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage entirely.

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