Long weekends

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is semantics — and it delivers two non-obvious rules: bridge days are not counted, and runs are cut at the year boundary. It does not describe the shape of the returned runs, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the computation and its inputs, the second states the query pattern and the two scope exclusions. No filler and the core definition is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does not say whether a run is returned as start/end dates, a day list, or a count. For a zero-required-parameter query tool the input side is well covered, but the return side is left to inference.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented ('Jalali year. Omit for current.', 'Shortest run to list.', 'Count Thursdays as days off.'). The description reinforces the Thursdays/Fridays distinction but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise computational verb and resource: 'Find runs of consecutive days off in a Jalali year', and defines the composition rule (official holidays joined with Fridays, optionally Thursdays). This clearly separates it from a plain holiday listing, though it never names ti_holidays or ti_upcoming_holidays as the siblings it is not.

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 line 'Use for "long weekends in 1405"' gives an explicit trigger query and the composition rule implies the scope (multi-day runs, not single days). There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to the alternative tool for a flat holiday list, which keeps it below a 5.

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