nc_get_upcoming_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. It states what the tool does but reveals no additional behavioral traits: no mention of return format (e.g., list of date/name pairs), no mention of timezone handling, no note on data source freshness, and no explicit statement that this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal beyond the action itself.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words, and it is appropriately brief for a simple getter 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its function. It could mention what the response contains (e.g., holiday names and dates) but that is a minor gap. The description is nearly complete; a 4 reflects the slight lack of return-spec detail.

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 schema covers the single 'limit' parameter with a full description including default, minimum, and maximum values. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('next upcoming public holidays'), and the scope ('in New Caledonia from today'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nc_get_public_holidays (which likely returns all holidays) and nc_is_public_holiday (which checks a specific date) by specifying the temporal focus.

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 implies usage for upcoming holidays but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks mention of sibling tools or conditions like 'use for future dates only' or 'if you need a specific date, use nc_is_public_holiday'. The context is clear but not framed as usage guidelines.

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