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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only enumerates what the list contains (section reference, text, version); it says nothing about read-only nature, jurisdiction behavior, ordering, pagination, or volume of results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the returned fields are listed compactly. It is appropriately sized, though it spends words on return contents that the output schema already covers.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, but the description leaves the one input parameter entirely unaddressed and gives no usage context for a tool sitting among several similarly named sibling rule/date utilities. Incomplete for the agent's decision needs.

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% for the single `jurisdiction` parameter, which carries only a default of "NZ" and no description. The tool description never mentions jurisdiction at all, so it does not compensate for the schema gap; an agent cannot tell what values are valid or whether the default is overridable.

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?

States a clear verb ("List") and resource ("working-day rules") plus the payload fields returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_working_days and count_working_days, though it never explicitly names what it is not, so it falls short of the top band.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent gets no signal about when list_rules is preferable to nz_holidays or the count/add variants.

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