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 mentions that makeup holidays and makeup workdays are included, which is useful, but it does not state whether the result is a simple boolean, a detailed object, or what the response format looks like. It also does not mention any data recency or source. For a lookup tool with zero annotations, this is a substantial gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and timezone context. Every word contributes to understanding the tool; there is no filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and the special inclusion of makeup days. However, it lacks usage guidelines to distinguish it from sibling holiday tools and does not describe the return value. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool that could be confused with others in the same domain.

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%; the only parameter 'date' is fully documented in the schema as 'YYYY-MM-DD'. The description does not add any additional meaning, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: '查詢台灣某一天是否放假' (query whether a given day in Taiwan is a holiday). It also clarifies scope by including makeup holidays and makeup workdays, which is a meaningful distinction. It is largely clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools life__get_holidays or trip__taiwan_holidays, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools. There is a sibling named life__get_holidays and another named trip__taiwan_holidays in the same domain, and the description does not explain how this single-day check differs from those broader holiday-list tools. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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