get_festival_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the tool as providing information but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or if it involves external API calls. The lack of explicit behavioral details is a gap.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the action and scope, second suggests use cases. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the categories of information returned (origins, customs, foods, etc.), which is fairly complete for a festival details tool. It does not specify format or structure but covers main content areas.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (festival_name, culture). The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by detailing the kind of information returned (origins, customs, foods, etc.), which helps the agent understand what details will be provided.

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 the tool provides 'in-depth information about a specific traditional festival' and enumerates specific aspects like historical origins, cultural significance, customs, etc. This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_annual_festivals and get_next_festival.

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 says 'Perfect for learning about cultural traditions or planning authentic festival celebrations,' which implies suitable use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_annual_festivals or get_next_festival.

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