nc_get_public_holidays

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately communicates a read-only retrieval operation returning all public holidays for a year. However, it does not mention output format, handling of empty results, or any error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple getter but not deeply transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence provides meaningful regional context that helps justify why this tool exists. Every word contributes value.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description plus schema provides enough to invoke it correctly. However, the presence of sibling tools like nc_is_public_holiday and nc_get_upcoming_holidays means a brief note distinguishing when to use this tool would improve selection accuracy. The lack of an output schema also leaves the return shape unspecified.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, year, including type, range, and default. The description only restates that the tool works 'for a specific year' and adds no additional semantic detail, so it does not go beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Get all public holidays in New Caledonia for a specific year.' It clearly defines the scope and adds useful geographic context by noting New Caledonia differs from mainland France. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like nc_is_public_holiday or nc_get_upcoming_holidays, so differentiation from them is only implicit.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need the full set of public holidays for a specific year in New Caledonia. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to closely related sibling tools such as nc_is_public_holiday or nc_get_upcoming_holidays.

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