get_us_market_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the date formatting and default, which are parameter semantics rather than behavioral traits. No contradiction or additional behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the parameter clarification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and a single optional parameter that is fully documented in the description, nothing is missing. The US vs Korean market distinction is clear from the name and description, making it complete for agent understanding.

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?

The schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying the exact format (YYYY-MM-DD), timezone (US local), and default behavior (today), providing essential meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool gets the US market operating calendar, a specific resource, distinguishing it from the Korean market calendar sibling (get_kr_market_calendar). The verb 'Get' and resource 'US market operating calendar' are explicit and unambiguous.

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 that this is for the US market, implying use when US market calendar information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_kr_market_calendar, but the sibling tool list makes the differentiation obvious.

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