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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior that annotations cannot express: the `to` parameter defaults to one year after `from`, and the window is capped at 10 years — both are real constraints an agent must know before calling.

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 the resource and scope first, then constraints in a parenthetical; nothing is wasted. Slight density in the parenthetical costs a little readability but keeps it compact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the shape of the returned holidays (e.g., name, date, which list they came from) but does not. Combined with unaddressed sibling differentiation, this is adequate-but-incomplete for a small read tool.

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% for the three parameters, so baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by documenting the default value and maximum span for the optional `to` field, which the schema itself does not state, and by framing the semantics as range *overlap* rather than containment.

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 (holidays) and a precise scope: holidays from a roadmap's *attached lists* that overlap a date range. That scope distinguishes it from a plain holiday-list lookup and from roadmap retrieval, so an agent can infer what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can reason that this is the tool for holiday data scoped to a single roadmap, but the description never states when to prefer it over sibling tools like get_holiday_list or list_holiday_lists, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the roadmap must have holiday lists attached).

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