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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description explains projection behavior, data_confidence levels, estimated_items, sources, data_version, and warnings. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral context about how uncertainty is surfaced in the response.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then supplies useful invocation and response details. It is somewhat dense, but most sentences carry relevant information and there is no major waste.

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 10-parameter tool with a full input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly and interpret projection-related output. No critical completeness gap remains.

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 100% and the parameter schemas already document country, market, weekend, categories, subdivision, extra_holidays, and include_estimated_holidays thoroughly. The description repeats much of that and adds an example, but does not substantially extend parameter semantics beyond the 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: returning the next N holidays on or after a date, including supporting fields like days_until and projection flags. It is distinguishable from siblings such as list_holidays or is_working_day, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 example invocation and calendar-selection notes make the intended usage reasonably implied, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over list_holidays, list_calendars, or other siblings. It provides invocation context rather than selection guidance.

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