search_holidays

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as return format, pagination, or caveats about date inclusivity. It relies entirely on structured fields and does not enhance transparency.

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 sentence of 6 words, highly concise with no fluff. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is minimally viable but not well-structured to front-load key information; the single sentence lacks any structuring like bullet points or sections.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not cover optional parameters, date format, return value, or how it differs from similar tools like search_records. With high complexity and low schema description coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'within a date range', covering required params start_date and end_date, but says nothing about optional params employee_id and instance. It gives no format hints (e.g., date format like YYYY-MM-DD) or semantic meaning for the optional parameters. The agent is left with incomplete parameter understanding.

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 'Search for holidays within a date range', which clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (holidays), and scope (date range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_records or search_employee by focusing on holidays. However, the term 'holidays' is ambiguous (public holidays vs. employee leave), and optional parameters like employee_id are not mentioned, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools (e.g., search_records, search_employee, search_across_instances), there is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other search tools.

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