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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: holidays carry a nominal legal date plus a rule/declared status, and declared-only holidays are omitted for undeclared years with a holiday_data_incomplete warning. This lets the agent predict missing data and interpret response fields without calling the tool.

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 sentences front-load the core result and then cover the important edge case (undeclared years). Every clause earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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?

Given the small parameter set, robust read-only annotations, full schema descriptions, and the declared output schema, this description answers all the behavioral questions an agent needs: status semantics, omission behavior, and warning. No significant context gap remains.

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 jurisdiction and year both described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not hurt, but it also does not improve on the schema.

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 title and description clearly identify the resource (public holidays) and the jurisdiction/year scope, and the description adds the status distinction (rule vs declared) that separates this from a trivial date list. It uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'returns/lists' verb, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though none of the date-utility siblings are direct alternatives.

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 implied by the title and description: call this when you need public holidays for a jurisdiction and year. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives such as business_days, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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