holidays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns an array of holidays with date, name, and type, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose potential error cases (e.g., invalid year ranges), the date format (e.g., ISO), or any limitations on historical/future years. For a simple read-only lookup, this is acceptable but not thorough, hence a 3.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second outlines the return format. There is no redundant verbiage, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. It is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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 tool is simple (one integer input, outputs an array of objects), but with no output schema, the description must explain the return values more thoroughly. It only mentions 'date, name and type' without specifying the date format or the possible types (e.g., 'national', 'observance'). It also lacks details on edge cases like leap years or invalid years. While adequate for a basic lookup, it is not fully complete for an agent to predict all responses.

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 description merely restates that the year is an input ('for a given year') without adding any meaning beyond the schema's property name. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by specifying format, range, or constraints, but it does not. The sole parameter 'year' is left underdocumented, making it hard for an agent to know valid inputs. This is a clear gap.

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 'List', the resource 'Brazilian national holidays', and the scope 'for a given year'. It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cep' or 'banks' which handle different Brazilian data domains. The return structure is also declared, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but since none of the siblings overlap in purpose, it is implicitly the only tool for holiday queries. However, the description does not state any exclusions or conditions (e.g., only national holidays, not state-level), which would help an agent decide when to rely on it. The usage context is clear but not explicitly framed.

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