travel_days

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real trait: results are capped at one day per date. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the read is guaranteed non-mutating, or the shape of the returned 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?

One tight sentence with the scope and the dedup constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps too short given the gaps elsewhere, but 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?

A simple one-param read with no output schema needs only light coverage, and the cap-per-date note helps. Still, an agent cannot infer the return format (list of dates, count, objects) or what 'local-calendar' means in practice.

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 0% for the single 'year' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Annual' and 'local-calendar' clarify that the year is interpreted in the local calendar, but format expectations or bounds are not stated.

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 (read) and resource (annual travel days) and adds the scope qualifier 'local-calendar.' It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like add_trip or check_missing.

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 only: the word 'annual' and the required year argument suggest fetching a year's worth of travel days. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool.

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