get_annual_festivals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format (chronological list with dates, names, descriptions) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential limitations. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, with no redundancy. The first sentence clearly states the core function, and the second adds value and use cases. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (chronological order, solar/lunar dates, names, descriptions). It also provides use cases and implies the scope. It could mention that culture defaults to Chinese but otherwise is complete for a simple data generation 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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about parameters; it does not mention that 'culture' defaults to 'chinese' or how it affects results. At baseline, the score is 3 since the schema is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('complete calendar of all traditional festivals for an entire year'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_festival_details' or 'get_lunar_festivals' by emphasizing the year-long comprehensive scope.

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 description lists appropriate use cases ('creating cultural event calendars, planning year-round celebrations, understanding annual rhythm') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'get_festival_details' or 'get_next_festival'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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