get_holidays

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains weekend/holiday counting, year-boundary walking, whole-year behavior, and exclusions. It could go further by describing the exact response shape or edge cases such as invalid input, but for a read-style holiday tool the behavior is disclosed well.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place: the first states the core purpose, the second covers date mode, the third covers year mode, and the fourth names exclusions. The most important information appears first and no filler is present.

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 simple parameter set and the absence of an output schema, the description supplies the key return semantics: whether a date is a business day, next/previous business days, whole-year data without a date, and regional observation details. It also explicitly disclaims unsupported cases, making the tool safe to select in mixed contexts.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes each parameter, which justifies a baseline of 3. The description adds useful parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: date triggers business-day calculations including year boundaries, and omitting date returns the entire year with regional observation details. That exceeds the 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 exact resource (public and bank holidays for 100+ countries) and the concrete operations: determining whether a date is a business day and finding next/previous business days. It also distinguishes its scope from sibling tools by explicitly marking what it does and what it does not cover.

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 gives two explicit invocation modes: pass a date for a business-day answer, or omit a date to get the whole year. It also clearly states exclusions, warning that regional closures, half-days, and market trading calendars are not covered. No competing holiday/business-day sibling exists, so the guidance is complete enough.

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