Festival dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: dates are computed offline and explicitly labelled as computed rather than official — a material trust caveat an agent needs when citing them.

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, no filler: the festival list is front-loaded, the scope constraint follows, and the computed-not-official caveat is stated last where it reads as a qualifier. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably: it names the festivals returned and the attached canonical texts. It stops short of specifying the response shape (per-festival date fields, date format) but is adequate for a two-parameter lookup.

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 the year range and all four tradition enum values fully described in the schema. The description reinforces the 'one year, one tradition' framing and shows the kind of canonical text attached (e.g. SN 56.11 for Āsāḷha Pūjā), but adds little semantic detail about the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (dates of named festivals — Māgha Pūjā, Vesak, Āsāḷha Pūjā, Vassa start/end, Pavāraṇā, Kaṭhina) scoped to one year and one tradition, and adds that canonical texts accompany each date. This is far more specific than the title, though it never names the adjacent sibling (uposatha) that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping phrase 'in one year for one tradition', which tells the agent the tool is a per-year, per-tradition query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named, so the agent must infer that observance-day or text-lookup needs belong to siblings.

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