stl_bundle_holidays

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

The description makes clear that the tool returns a mapping and is read-only/idempotent via annotations. It explains the semantic distinction between MetroBus SUNDAY service and MetroLink WEEKEND service, giving transparency about the data model, though it does not spell out the exact output fields.

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 succinct and well-structured, with a brief purpose statement, a critical caveat, and parameter documentation. No unnecessary wording or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics thoroughly, and the existence of an output schema fills in return-structure details. It is complete for the agent to call the tool correctly, though a bit more detail about the exact output mapping would be slightly richer.

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 single year parameter is fully explained: what it represents, that it defaults to the current year, and the edge case near a year boundary. This gives the agent complete guidance for setting the parameter correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a holiday-to-service-type mapping and stresses the bus/rail distinction, which is the core purpose. It is specific enough to differentiate from related GTFS calendar/service-day tools.

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 practical usage guidance by warning against merging bus and rail service types and explaining why that matters. It also covers the year parameter's default and the year-boundary caveat, helping the agent decide when to pass an explicit year.

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