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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the data source is a ministerial decision and end dates are inclusive — but says nothing about what a returned break record looks like or whether the year is fixed to the current one.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical provenance is slightly terse but every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered lookup with no output schema, the description covers scope, source, and the inclusive-end-date convention. The main residual gap is the shape of returned entries (whether start dates and break names are included), which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that no year argument exists by pinning results to the current school year, which prevents an agent from hunting for a year parameter.

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 specific resource (school breaks) with scope (current Moroccan school year) and provenance (ministerial decision). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling public_holidays, but never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts school breaks with public holidays.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for school calendars versus public_holidays, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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