节假日/调休查询

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit mention of '内置国务院办公厅 2025、2026 年放假通知' provides critical behavioral context regarding the data source and scope limitations (2027 data is unavailable). This is a valuable piece of meta-information about the tool's operational boundary.

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 definition is highly concise and efficient. It packs the function, the scope of data coverage, and the nature of the tool (classification) into a single, powerful sentence.

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 single-parameter nature of the tool and the absence of complex output schemas, the description provides all necessary contextual completeness. It informs the agent about the domain, the data sources used for the classification, and its limitations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is a 3. The description does not add further semantic meaning to the 'date' parameter beyond what is already implied by its function and the schema's type definition. It doesn't elaborate on date format nuances beyond the general intent.

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 clear verb ('查询' - query) and precisely defines the resource it classifies: whether a day is a holiday, adjusted workday, weekend, or regular workday. It is distinct from date manipulation tools like workday_count or holiday_year.

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 clearly defines the tool's function as a classifier for a specific date, which inherently establishes its proper usage. It is not a calculator, making its purpose unambiguous in the agent's decision-making process.

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