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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: the answer accounts for 補假 and 補班 days, so the result is not a naive calendar lookup. However, it says nothing about the response shape (boolean vs. holiday name), data source freshness despite the 即時 label, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; the bracketed category tag is conventional and adds no bloat. Nothing here is wasted.

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?

With one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. It falls short on the two things an agent would still need: what the return value looks like (boolean, holiday name, or text) and how this differs from the sibling holiday-listing tools.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it fully (YYYY-MM-DD), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format hints, range limits, or timezone considerations beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific verb (查詢 / query whether) and a precise resource (whether a given Taiwan date is a holiday), with the scope narrowed further to include 補假 and 補班 days. It is understandable on its own, but it never mentions the closely related sibling life__get_holidays or trip__taiwan_holidays, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of those to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. Usage is only inferable from the single-purpose phrasing, which is weak given multiple holiday-related siblings (life__get_holidays, trip__taiwan_holidays, travel__get_2027_long_weekends) exist.

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