listar_feriados

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that UF is optional for state holidays but does not cover whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, error handling, or output format. The lack of detail left the agent with significant unknowns.

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 extremely concise—two short phrases that directly state the purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits clarification on what 'UF' stands for (state abbreviation) and does not explain the return structure beyond what the output schema might provide. For full completeness, it should explicitly mention that 'uf' is a two-letter state code.

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. It adds meaning by specifying that 'year' is the target year and 'uf' is optional for including state holidays. However, it does not explain the expected format for 'year' (e.g., a 4-digit integer) or what 'uf' values are valid. This is an improvement over the bare schema but still incomplete.

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 it lists Brazilian holidays for a year, with optional state holidays via UF. This is a specific verb (listar) and resource (feriados brasileiros) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'is_feriado_nacional' or 'contar_dias_uteis'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list and tool name imply it is for listing holidays, no guidance is given on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in specific scenarios.

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