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 only reveals that results are for 'this year' and come from nager.at; it does not describe default behavior when 'q' is empty, output shape, error conditions, or any limitations.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the core resource and scope. It wastes no words, though it loses a point for omitting any structured parameter hint or usage cue.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete: an agent cannot confidently determine the expected value format for 'q' or what happens when it is left empty. The output schema may cover return values, but input semantics remain underspecified.

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?

The schema defines one string parameter 'q' with 0% coverage in the description. The word 'Country' gives a helpful hint that 'q' likely selects a country, but the description does not specify whether it expects a country code, country name, or what an empty default means.

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 the resource is public holidays, scoped to a country and to the current year, and identifies the data source (nager.at). This is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Country public holidays this year.' There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as what country format to supply.

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