export_holidays_ics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the output is a text/calendar document with all-day events, and explains how parameters filter holidays. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for the main purpose, a use_case block, and a sentence detailing return and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter details. It explains the output type and filtering options. Minor omission: it doesn't mention the output is a downloadable file, but this is inferred from 'ready-to-import .ics document.'

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 only 20% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning for 'include' (all, public, school) and 'school_type' (VS/MS/BS/EO) beyond patterns. However, 'language' and the constraints on 'year' and 'canton' are not elaborated. Overall, it provides useful context but leaves some gaps.

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 tool exports a canton's holidays for a year as an iCalendar document. The use_case block reinforces the purpose, and the sibling tools (e.g., check_date, get_school_holidays) are distinct in that they do not produce ICS files, making this tool's purpose unique and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to produce a ready-to-import .ics calendar, implying use when an ICS file is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., get_school_holidays for JSON). The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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