calendar_year

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool provides equity market holidays for a year, without any additional context such as return format, data source, timezone, or the fact that it performs a read-only lookup. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 a single sentence and is concise, but it is not polished due to the unresolved '[VALUE]' placeholder. It front-loads the essential topic but the placeholder detracts from clarity and professionalism, preventing a higher score.

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?

This is a simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves significant gaps: it does not clarify what 'equity market holidays' include (e.g., which exchanges), the expected output structure, or how it differs from the sibling calendar tools. An agent would be uncertain about the response format and the exact scope.

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% because the only parameter 'year' includes a description ('The year to fetch data for.'). The tool description's phrase 'for a given year' adds no meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 when structured data fully documents parameters.

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 core description 'Equity market holidays for a given year' clearly identifies the resource (holidays) and scope (yearly), which is specific enough to infer the tool's function. However, the leading '[VALUE]' placeholder is an obvious template artifact and there is no explicit verb, so it loses the top marks for a clean purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although sibling tools like calendar_open_today and calendar_on_date exist, no mention is made of them or of any selection criteria such as 'use this for annual holiday lists'. The only hint is the phrase 'for a given year', which is implicit rather than explicit guidance.

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