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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the domain semantics (retail and commercial bank closures, not market or settlement closures) and the start default of today, which is useful behavior beyond the schema. It does not state the return shape, date ordering, coverage limits, or what happens if the centre code is unknown.

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the scope definition and the default. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to make a correct call: the key parameter's format and the start default. It leaves the end parameter undefined and says nothing about the response, which is a meaningful but not fatal gap.

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 all meaning must come from the description. It usefully explains the financial_centre format with a concrete example (UN/LOCODE, e.g. USNYC) and clarifies that start defaults to today, which is not evident from the schema's null default. The end parameter, however, is never mentioned, leaving a gap.

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 (bank holidays) scoped to a specific entity (a financial centre identified by UN/LOCODE) and defines it precisely as 'days retail and commercial banks are closed'. That scoping phrase meaningfully separates it from siblings like settlement_holidays, trading_holidays, and fx_market_holidays, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 domain definition: use this when you need the days banks are shut in a financial centre. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the agent is left to infer the choice against the many holiday-related siblings on its own.

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