next_holidays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, how edge cases (e.g., no more holidays in the year) are handled, or whether the start date is inclusive. The description is minimal and lacks the behavioral detail needed for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the use-case note in the second is optional but relevant. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main intent but leaves important gaps: no mention of the returned structure, the inclusivity of from_date, or how count interacts with holidays remaining. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for calling without further inference.

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 schema already documents the parameters and their formats. The description echoes the count default ('default: next 5') and the source date ('from a given date'), adding no significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('upcoming public holidays'), and the default count, which is specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_holidays, but the 'upcoming' qualifier and 'from a given date' imply its scope.

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 phrase 'Handy for planning around long weekends' gives a use case but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_holidays or is_holiday. The intended usage is implied from 'upcoming' and 'from a given date', but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.

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