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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'calculates a list' – the output format, what holidays are included/excluded, and whether it returns Hebrew dates or other details are not mentioned. This is minimal beyond the bare operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the core action and scope are immediately clear.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple with one fully documented parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the list contains (e.g., holiday names, dates, or format). An agent can call it correctly but may misjudge the shape of the response, so completeness is adequate but not robust.

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 100%, and the schema already defines 'year' as a 'Gregorian year'. The description adds only slight clarification with '(civil)', which is marginal. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculates') and a precise resource ('a list of all Jewish holidays during a Gregorian (civil) year'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that convert dates, compute times, or return a single item like yahrzeit or daf-yomi.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need all Jewish holidays for a civil year. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as shabbat-times or convert-gregorian-to-hebrew, leaving some routing to inference.

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