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

No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at a subscription requirement with 'PRO' and the access_token schema, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how authentication actually works, or what the result contains.

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 compact sentence with the main scope front-loaded. 'PRO.' is terse but does not add unnecessary length.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description omits important invocation details such as authentication behavior, defaults, parameter interactions, and return shape.

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 33%, with province and federal_only undocumented in the schema. The description hints that 'one province' relates to province and federal comparison relates to federal_only, but it does not clarify defaults, allowed values, or whether federal_only excludes provincial holidays.

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 identifies the resource as public holidays for the current year and states two modes: one province or a federal comparison across Canada. It is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as next_holidays or business_days.

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 gives implied usage scenarios (all holidays this year, or federal comparison), but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like next_holidays, business_days, or due_date.

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