qm_data_holidays

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-phase payment protocol, pricing, the fact that it never signs or holds funds, and resale rights. It stops short of describing the result payload or any rate/error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 clause, followed by the payment mechanics. The text is longer than a simple lookup warrants, but nearly every sentence carries necessary payment-protocol information for a paid tool.

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 market-data lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers invocation (the two-phase paid call) and safety. The return format is only vaguely noted ('the data comes back in the tool result'), a minor gap.

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 country, year, and payment are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the two-phase use of 'payment' but adds no format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and question clearly: 'Whether a date is a public holiday in a country', which is distinct from sibling tools like qm_data_country or qm_data_time. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

It offers use-case hints ('support scheduling, market calendars, or posting logic') that imply when the tool is relevant, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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