Read holiday source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description largely restates that safety profile ("without changing anything", "never changed"). The scoping detail that the resource pool is untouched, and that coverage is reported per source calendar/year, adds some value beyond the annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences with the read-only nature front-loaded, and the second sentence reinforces the guarantee before the payoff. Slightly redundant, since "without changing anything" and "never changed" make the same point twice.

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?

For a read-only getter with a full output schema, complete parameter documentation and covering annotations, the description is sufficient; an agent knows what it returns and that nothing is mutated. Only the routing versus sibling calendar tools is left unstated.

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 100% for the single optional source parameter, including its HTTPS/path format and the default-to-program-language behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema-driven baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads the holiday source") and clarifies the returned content: which source calendars exist and which years they cover. It implicitly contrasts with the write-oriented sibling rillsoft_calendar_source_import, but never names that alternative explicitly.

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 is only implied: the read-before-import workflow is inferable from the name and the sibling import tool, but the description never states when to call this versus rillsoft_calendar_source_import or rillsoft_calendar_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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