Australia Public Holidays MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, what the response looks like, or any rate limits; 'PRO.' is ambiguous and does not compensate.

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 short and front-loaded with the core resource and scope. The leading 'PRO.' is unclear and does not obviously earn its place, but otherwise there is no wasted text.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the core operation. However, with no annotations and no return-format explanation, it leaves behavioral and response expectations underspecified.

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 only 50%, but the description meaningfully clarifies the 'state' parameter by giving example state codes (NSW, VIC, QLD). The access_token parameter is documented in the schema, not in the description, so the description adds partial but useful semantic context.

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 resource and scope: holidays affecting a state code for this year, with examples like NSW, VIC, QLD. It is clear without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings is_holiday and next_holidays.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus is_holiday or next_holidays. The phrase 'for this year' hints at a calendar-year scope, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Check' implies a safe read-only lookup and 'PRO' signals it is a paid/authenticated tier, but it doesn't confirm the boolean return, failure behavior for malformed dates, or whether authentication is mandatory.

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?

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded after a terse tier marker. 'PRO.' is the only questionable token, since it is unexplained shorthand, but it earns space by signaling paid access.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials of input format and scope are present. It still omits what the response looks like (presumably a boolean) and what happens to dates outside the AU list or invalid input, which matters for correct invocation.

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 50%: the undocumented parameter is 'date', and the description supplies exactly the missing contract, YYYY-MM-DD format. The access_token requirement is covered by the schema's own description, so the gap is effectively closed.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: check a date against the AU holiday list, with the accepted date format named. The AU scope implicitly separates it from by_state and next_holidays, but the distinction is never made explicit, so an agent must infer it.

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 instead of by_state or next_holidays, and no prerequisites beyond the 'PRO' hint. The sibling names suggest a national-level lookup versus state-specific or upcoming-holiday alternatives, but the description never states that.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the hard cap of 5 results and the 'from today' anchor, which is real behavioral information. It omits the return shape (field names, whether state/region appears on each holiday), timezone handling, and what happens near year boundaries or when fewer than 5 remain.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the scope constraint and containing no filler or redundancy. The 'FREE' marker is a single token that plausibly helps an agent weigh calling it.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials, but it leaves a material ambiguity against sibling by_state: whether the returned holidays are national, per-state, or all-jurisdiction. That gap matters for correct tool selection more than the missing return-format detail.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The fixed 'next 5 from today' framing correctly signals that no filtering input exists.

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 concrete resource and scope: the next 5 Australian public holidays starting from today. The verb-less phrasing is still unambiguous because both the count and the time anchor are explicit. It loses a point because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling by_state, leaving ambiguous whether results are national-only or state-specific.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the alternatives by_state or is_holiday. 'FREE' hints at cost, not at selection criteria, so the agent must infer that this is the zero-argument 'give me something quick' option.

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