get_argentina_holidays

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: moveable holidays like Carnival and Good Friday are dynamically calculated, and exactly 15 national holidays defined by law are returned. It also describes the output field format, which is not in annotations.

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 concise with 4 sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then details output structure, dynamic behavior, count, and use cases. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 (single parameter, output schema provided), the description fully covers purpose, output format, behavioral details (dynamic holidays), and usage context. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter 'year' with a clear description and example. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource 'Argentine national public holidays for a given year' as a structured list. It distinguishes from sibling country-specific holiday tools by specifying Argentina and mentioning national holidays by law.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when calculating Argentine business deadlines, invoice payment dates, or scheduling tasks that must avoid non-working days in Argentina.' While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., get_brazil_holidays) imply that this tool is specific to Argentina, and the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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