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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the default-to-current-year behavior and the fact that results include date and applicability scope. It stops short of describing ordering, count, or whether non-applicable holidays are omitted.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the default behavior and return content folded in compactly. No filler or redundancy.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, default, and the shape of returned data. A brief note on result ordering or whether the list is filtered by employee applicability would make it fully 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its bounds (1990-2100) and its default. The description restates the default but adds no further semantics such as whether partial-year or multi-year queries are possible. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (company holidays) plus the scoping dimension (a year, defaulting to the current one). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like talenthr_list_time_off_types or talenthr_get_calendar, though it doesn't explicitly name the boundary between them.

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 infer this is the read path for holiday data, and the default-year note hints at optional filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the related calendar or time-off-type tools that might also answer a holiday question.

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