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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing cost ('Free') and the content scope (legal holidays, Orthodox Easter, Rusalii), which annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the usage condition and then the resource. Every clause (Orthodox Easter, Rusalii, Free) carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only gap is that with no output schema the agent doesn't learn the return shape (e.g., list of dated holiday names), which would have been a useful addition.

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 optional 'year' parameter is documented with a default and example, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies year scoping ('for a year') without adding format or default behavior, which is the expected baseline.

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 (Romanian public/legal holidays for a year) with the notable inclusions (Orthodox Easter, Rusalii), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like ro_business_day and ro_tax_deadlines. The verb is implicit ('get/list') but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Use when planning payment or filing dates in Romania' gives a clear triggering context rather than leaving usage implied. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., ro_business_day for single-date checks) or stating when not to use it, so it falls below a 5.

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