全年放假安排

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the title — that results include both 调休上班日 (make-up workdays) and the 官方通知来源 (provenance) — which an agent could not assume. It does not disclose what happens for a year whose arrangement has not yet been announced by the State Council, nor the jurisdictional scope (presumably mainland China), which are the main behavioral unknowns for this tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with the provenance clause trailing. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope (whole year), content (holiday ranges plus make-up workdays), and provenance (official notice). The remaining gap — unannounced future years — is marginal for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (年份，如 2026), so the schema already conveys meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the valid year range or how the year should be interpreted relative to the returned arrangement.

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 (列出) and a clearly bounded resource: the full-year set of statutory holiday ranges plus make-up workdays, with the official notice as source. This implicitly separates it from the single-date sibling holiday_check, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 word 全年 (whole year) hints that this is the bulk/yearly view rather than a point lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over holiday_check, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether the year's arrangement must already be officially published). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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