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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output elements and does not state side effects, read-only status, authentication requirements, or what kind of data is represented by 'max frozen' or 'milestones'.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core resource name and contents. It wastes no words, though its fragmentary style compresses meaning and forces the reader to infer the intended structure.

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?

As a zero-parameter read-style tool, the absence of invocation details is acceptable, but there is no output schema and the key terms 'frozen capital', 'max frozen', and 'milestones' are undefined. The agent can likely select it for frozen-capital calendar questions but may not fully understand what the returned data means.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With no invocation arguments required, the baseline 4 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 identifies a specific resource, a frozen capital calendar, and lists its contents (daily date series, max frozen, milestones). It is clear enough to convey the tool's domain, though it lacks a finite verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling calendar-style tools.

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 alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The description implies a lookup tool but leaves usage entirely to inference.

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