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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: 2026 data is built in and available offline, and an empty date queries today. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly say whether years other than 2026 are supported.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, usage examples next, then input example/default behavior and offline availability. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, usage contexts, input example, default behavior, and offline availability. It is nearly complete, though the scope of data years beyond 2026 remains slightly ambiguous.

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%, and the schema already documents the date parameter, its YYYY-MM-DD format, and the default-to-today behavior. The description adds a concrete example input, but does not add syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: querying China's statutory holidays and adjusted workday arrangements, and it names the exact returned facts (whether a day is off, holiday name, make-up workday info). This is clearly distinguishable from all sibling 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?

It explicitly lists usage contexts such as 'how many days off for National Day', 'whether a day is a workday', and 'next holiday', which gives strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but no direct sibling alternative exists.

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