get_closures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the content classes returned (stat holidays, office/program closures), which goes beyond the name, but it says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination, or whether recurring closures are expanded.

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?

A single compact fragment with zero filler and the scoping constraint front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete schema descriptions, the essentials for correct invocation are present. What is missing is differentiation from the many sibling event/calendar tools, which matters in this crowded toolset.

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 start's accepted formats ('today', 'next monday', '2026-11-12') and end's 90-day default are already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'in a date range' adds no meaning beyond that baseline.

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 names the specific resource and scope: closure notices covering stat holidays and office/program closures, restricted to a date range. That is clearly distinct from get_events or get_week in content, though it never states a verb or explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants closure information for a period. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_events, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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