Public Holidays

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and directly discloses the return shape: each holiday with date, local name, English name, and nationwide flag. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only lookup ('Get'), though it omits edge-case disclosures like supported country coverage and year ranges.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action, then provide parameter context and return fields. Every sentence earns its place, and the use-case list is compact, 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 presence of an output schema covers the response structure, so the description only needs to handle selection and parameters. It gives enough to call the tool correctly for a simple country+year holiday lookup, though it omits edge cases like unsupported country codes or invalid years.

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%, so the description's explanation of 'country' as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code with examples (CL, AR, MX, BR, CO, PE, UY) adds essential meaning. 'year' is not explained beyond being part of the query, but its role is reasonably inferable; a range or format note would make it fully solid.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get official public holidays for a Latin American country and year.' It distinguishes itself from holiday-related siblings like next_holidays, long_weekends, and business_days by focusing on official holidays for a specified country and year and by listing return fields.

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 states concrete use cases ('scheduling, SLAs, logistics, and payroll') and scopes the query to a country and year, making selection clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use them, but the country+year lookup is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools.

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