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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state what is returned ('all names'), which is useful, but says nothing about invalid/unsupported dates, leap-day handling, or error behavior for a malformed MM-DD string.

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 no filler; the format constraint is stated immediately after the purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described further, and the tool is a low-complexity single-parameter read. The description covers purpose and input format but leaves invalid-date/edge-case behavior undocumented.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying the required MM-DD format for the single parameter, which is the key semantic detail the schema omits. It does not clarify edge cases like 02-29 or leading-zero requirements.

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 and resource ('Retrieve all names') and the input format ('MM-DD'), which implicitly separates it from get_nameday_today and match_nameday_by_name. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'for a given date' implies the caller already has a date and should use this over get_nameday_today, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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