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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the essential behavior and output (longest consecutive break plus the days to request), which is useful. It does not state whether results are deterministic, what the response looks like structurally, or any constraints beyond the input range already in the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the input, the computation, and the output with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return; it does so at a high level (longest combination and which days to request). For a simple one-parameter computation tool this is nearly complete, with only the exact output shape left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'leave' is already documented (可請天數 1～10). The description restates the input meaning (可請的假日天數) without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it computes (算出) the longest consecutive holiday combination in 2027 and which days to request off, given a number of leave days. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_2027_long_weekends, though it does not name or contrast with them 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 input sentence (enter how many leave days you have available), so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no mention of related tools such as get_2027_long_weekends that might be used together with it.

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