get_festivals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions what types of events are supported, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how many results might be returned. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral constraints. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more complete context about the operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about supporting Chinese festivals and international holidays, which helps explain the 'country' and 'types' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic information beyond what's already well-documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resources: festivals, solar terms, and public holidays. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on date-range retrieval of cultural/calendar events rather than calculations, conversions, or time management functions.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: for retrieving events within a date range, with support for Chinese festivals and international public holidays. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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