FestivalFinder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the call returns a rule explanation alongside the date, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior when a name is unknown.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded ahead of the two required qualifiers. It is borderline telegraphic ('Date + rule explanation'), but nothing redundant is included.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the shape of the result (date + rule explanation). The main missing piece is disambiguation from the three sibling festival tools.

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 schema itself documents neither parameter. The description partially compensates by tying 'name' to the festival identity and 'year' to the lookup year, but it adds no format hints (e.g. whether name is canonical/id or accepts aliases, or year bounds).

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 names a specific resource (one festival) and the exact payload (date plus rule explanation) scoped by name and year, which is more precise than the bare title 'Festival details'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling lookups (list_festivals, next_festival, festivals_in_month), so it stops short of a 5.

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 stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named even though three nearby tools cover overlapping festival lookups. The implicit scoping ('one festival by name in a year') hints at the single-record use case but leaves routing to inference.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 1-12 month range constraint; it says nothing about ordering, locale/timezone of the calendar, or how many festivals come back, so it adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence with no waste and the scope constraint front and center. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 read with no output schema, the description gives the minimum needed to call it. It still omits the year parameter's semantics and any hint about return content or ordering, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 carry the load. It usefully documents month as 1-12 but says nothing about the year parameter (format, range, or whether it can be omitted), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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 names the resource (festivals) and scopes it to a calendar month of a year, so the agent can tell roughly what it returns. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_festivals or next_festival, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_festivals, next_festival, or festival_details. The month scope hints at the use case but no explicit condition or exclusion is given.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety needs no restating. The description does add real context the annotations lack: the valid 2020-2040 window and the 'Approximate' accuracy caveat. It still says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination for a year of festivals.

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: resource, scope, return fields, valid range, and the accuracy caveat, with no filler. Everything is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description is obliged to sketch return values and does so ('name, date, rule'), and it discloses the input range and an accuracy caveat. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only return ordering/size is unaddressed.

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% and 'year' is a bare number with no documented bounds, so the description's '(2020-2040)' supplies the enforcement constraint the schema omits. It does not clarify whether the year is AD/CE or timezone-sensitive, leaving a small gap.

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 (all Hindu festivals plus sankrantis), scope ('for a year'), and the fields returned ('name, date, rule'), which an agent can distinguish from the narrower siblings festivals_in_month and next_festival. The sibling differentiation is implied by the annual scope rather than named explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 sentence states when to choose this over festival_details, festivals_in_month, or next_festival. The annual scope implies the use case (bulk year listing) but the agent must infer it from the sibling names.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when no festival exists after the date, whether it returns one or many, or anything about the returned record.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup, though the phrasing 'Next festival on or after a date' is slightly clipped.

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, read-only, one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns conceptually and the input format. It could add edge-case behavior (e.g., no match), but nothing critical is missing.

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 carry the single parameter. It specifies both the format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the semantics ('on or after') of from_date, which is meaningful compensation for the undocumented schema.

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-like operation ('next festival') and a scope ('on or after a date'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like list_festivals and festivals_in_month. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (festival_details, festivals_in_month, list_festivals). The 'on or after' phrasing implies a lookup-by-date use case, but the agent must infer that from the sibling set rather than the text.

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