get_holiday_windows

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it explains that each window has official vs effective dates stretched over adjacent weekends/holidays, that short closures are surfaced separately as school_closures, and that local/observed flags encode whether the home keeps a holiday. It even tells the agent to ask the family when observed is null. It omits auth/rate-limit style operational traits, but for a data-read tool the semantic disclosure is strong.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and then output semantics in a logical order. It is moderately long but each clause conveys non-obvious meaning; the densest sentence about effective dates is justified by real behavioral content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and the description sensibly focuses on interpreting that output (effective vs official dates, local/observed, school_closures). Combined with parameter format guidance and a usage cue, it is nearly complete for a 4-parameter read tool, lacking only explicit mention of required country/year behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the ambiguous parameters: region is defined with concrete examples ("DE-BY", "AT-WI", and that ISO "AT-9" also works) and home is explained as the profile's town to pass in. country and year go unexplained, but they are self-evident from context.

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 opening line names a specific resource and scope: school holiday windows plus public holidays, bounded by region and year. It is instantly distinguishable in function, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like find_bridge_days or get_year_budget, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Use this to frame the year before discussing destinations" gives a clear situational trigger for reaching for the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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