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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It helpfully discloses the data's legal basis and the Monday-shift rules (19/4, 18/5, 12/10) plus Carnaval and Semana de Turismo, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, output shape, or whether `mes` narrows results.

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 dense sentence that front-loads what the tool returns and tucks the parameter note at the end. No filler or repetition; effectively sized.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It covers the calculation basis and one enum, but omits how `mes` affects results and what the returned records look like, leaving gaps for a no-schema tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it defines the `tipo` enum values (pago = no laborable, laborable), which is the most ambiguous parameter. But `mes` (a 1-12 filter) is never explained and `anio` is only implied, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — national holidays of Uruguay by year — and adds scope (calculated under Law 16.805). This clearly distinguishes the resource, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling uy_feriado_proximo, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 description implies usage (query holidays 'por año', filter by tipo) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not distinguish this year-list tool from uy_feriado_proximo. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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