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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by the structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, the fixed limit of 10 results, but says nothing about how 'upcoming' is anchored (today's date, timezone), whether regional or joint-leave holidays are included, or how the entries are ordered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The result cap of 10 is placed where it is most useful, right after the core action.

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 parameterless tool, this is nearly complete, but no output schema exists, so the description is the only place to learn the shape of a holiday entry (date, name, maybe whether it is a national holiday) and it does not provide it. That is a modest but real gap for an agent deciding whether to call the tool or reformat its output.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are correctly no parameter details in the description, and none are needed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('next 10 upcoming public holidays in Indonesia'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like libur_list or libur_get, which are the obvious close alternatives.

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?

The usage is implied: query this when the agent needs near-future holidays without specifying a date. The description never says when to prefer this over libur_list or libur_get, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

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