get_next_holidays

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that make-up workdays are excluded, that results carry searchedThrough and truncatedByData, that truncation occurs at the last published year, and that a start date beyond published data does not yield a 'no holidays' answer. Missing auth/rate-limit context, but edge-case disclosure is strong.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (default date, weekend skipping, workday exclusion, output fields, edge case). It is dense but not padded, though it reads as one long block rather than cleanly separated concerns.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (searchedThrough, truncatedByData) and their truncation semantics, plus the boundary behavior for late start dates. For a 3-param read tool this is nearly complete, lacking only error/permission context.

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%, so the schema already documents date format, count bounds, and skip_weekends semantics. The description largely restates these (Taipei today default, named-holiday-only weekends), adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetching the next N Taiwan holidays after a given date. The 'next N' framing implicitly separates it from get_holidays_in_range and check_holiday, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Usage context is implied through the default-date behavior and the skip_weekends option, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_holidays_in_range, check_holiday, or get_workdays. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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