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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that both actual and observed dates are returned and that provincial anniversary days are included, plus the supported year window. It does not explicitly state the operation is a read-only lookup or say anything about permission needs, but for an obvious query tool the remaining gap is modest.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the optional parameter example trailing. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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-value detail is unnecessary. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the unaddressed 'jurisdiction' parameter and the total absence of usage routing against the working-day siblings leave meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does document the year range (2020-2030) and gives an example region value ('wellington'), which the schema lacks, but the 'jurisdiction' parameter (default 'NZ') is never mentioned or explained, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented.

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 (NZ public holidays, actual and observed, plus provincial anniversary days) and a clear scope (a given year, 2020-2030). It is easily distinguished from the validate_* and count_working_days siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like count_working_days or add_working_days, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance-like content is the valid year range, which is really a parameter constraint.

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