Long Weekends

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns start/end dates, day count, and bridge-day information, which is useful. But it does not clarify what qualifies as a long weekend, how bridge days are determined, any limitations on supported countries/years, or whether the operation is purely read-only and safe to call.

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 very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the exact operation and scope, and the second sentence adds return details and use cases. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 output schema exists, so the return structure does not need to be fully described. However, the input side is under-specified: there is no guidance on country code format, supported countries, or year constraints, and the relationship to sibling tools like public_holidays is left implicit. This is adequate for a basic call but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that country must be a Latin American country and that year is the target year for the long weekends. However, it does not provide supported country identifiers, format expectations, or possible year ranges, leaving the agent to guess at valid inputs.

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 that the tool returns long weekends, identifies the scope (Latin American country and year), and defines what each result contains. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like public_holidays or business_days, but the 'long weekend' resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 implies usage for travel, staffing, and demand planning, which gives some context for when it would be valuable. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of public_holidays, business_days, or next_holidays, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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