get_taiwan_holiday_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the unified return structure (MCPToolResponse with success, data, error, tool), lists the holiday data fields, and explicitly mentions possible error causes such as date format, API service failure, and network issues. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and covers failure modes.

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 well-organized with clear sections (overview, usage examples, args, returns, raises). The core purpose is front-loaded, and every section adds necessary information without redundancy. It is detailed but not bloated.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete invocation contract: purpose, parameter format, return schema details, error scenarios, and examples. An agent can call the tool correctly and accurately interpret the result with no missing information.

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 0% for the only parameter 'date'. The description compensates thoroughly by specifying the exact format YYYY-MM-DD and giving concrete examples like '2025-01-01', '2025-10-06', and '2025-10-07'. An agent knows exactly what to pass without opening the schema.

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 '查詢' (query) and a specific resource '台灣節假日資訊' (Taiwan holiday info), and further clarifies the exact function: checking if a date is a national holiday and retrieving its details. It is clearly distinct from the stock-related sibling tools, and the holiday focus separates it from check_taiwan_trading_day even without explicit contrast.

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 provides three concrete usage examples covering a holiday, a special holiday, and a regular workday, clearly indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as 'use check_taiwan_trading_day for trading day queries', so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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