祝日一覧

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported date range (2020-2030), which is useful, but it does not explain behavior for out-of-range years (e.g., error vs. empty list) or whether the list includes substitute holidays. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one short sentence plus a concise range statement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant details, earning top marks for efficiency.

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 simple list tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains purpose and supported range, but could be more complete by addressing edge cases (e.g., out-of-range years) and the exact scope of holidays (e.g., national holidays only).

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'year' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the valid range (2020-2030), which is not present in the schema's property description. This is a valuable addition for correct parameter use.

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 tool returns a list of Japanese holidays for a specified year. The verb '返します' plus the resource '日本の祝日' and scope '指定年' make it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that handle business-day calculations.

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 clear context: it lists holidays for a given year, within a supported period of 2020-2030. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage-exclusion guidance.

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