next_school_holidays

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about computing from today, which is useful but not extensive. No additional behavioral details like rate limits or caching are provided, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 short, with a clear main sentence and a helpful use case block. No redundant text, though the use case could be integrated more concisely.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and context (forward-looking, from today). However, with low parameter documentation and no mention of output format (despite an output schema existing), it is not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters and sibling alternatives.

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 only 25% (only 'canton' has a description). The tool description does not mention any parameter details, leaving the other three parameters (count, language, school_type) with no semantic guidance beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'next upcoming school holiday periods for a canton', with a specific use case for forward-looking planning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_school_holidays' which likely handle date ranges.

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 use case explains when to use this tool (forward-looking planning without manual date range computation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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