sg_holidays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the operation without revealing details such as data source, default behavior when no year is given, output format, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that claims to 'get' data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not mention that the year parameter is optional or what happens when omitted, nor does it describe the return value (e.g., list of dates). With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete.

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 100% for the single optional parameter `year`, which the schema describes as 'Filter by year e.g. 2025, 2026'. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Singapore public holidays'), which clearly states what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which relate to holidays. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 implies usage when Singapore public holiday data is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, though none exist among siblings. The context is simple, but explicit usage guidance is missing.

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