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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose useful traits: result cardinality (next 3), scope (Canada only), default province (ON), and that federal vs provincial holidays are distinguished. It omits whether results include dates/names or how the two categories are marked.

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?

One tight sentence (plus the 'FREE' prefix) with scope and default front-loaded. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the 'FREE' banner is arguably noise.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers scope, default, and result type reasonably. What is left unstated is the accepted province value format and what fields the holiday entries contain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it tells the agent the parameter is a Canadian province/territory and defaults to ON (implying two-letter codes), but never defines the accepted value format or a full list.

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 resource and scope: the next 3 public holidays for a Canadian province/territory. The word 'next' plus 'public holidays' distinguishes it from the date-oriented siblings (business_days, due_date, year_planner), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 versus business_days or year_planner; the agent must infer from the wording alone. 'FREE' hints at cost but is not usage guidance.

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