APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses data scope (230+ countries, 100+ years, 4 holiday types) and filtering capabilities. However, it lacks operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a valid response structure.

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 efficiently structured with four short, front-loaded clauses. Every phrase earns its place: scope (230+ countries), taxonomy (4 types), capabilities (filtering), temporal coverage (100+ years), and competitive differentiation. No redundant or filler text.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally specify what data structure is returned (e.g., list of holiday names and dates). It adequately covers input parameters and filtering logic, but leaves the return value unspecified, which is a notable gap for a data retrieval tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly grouping month/day/type as 'Filter by' capabilities, reinforcing their semantic relationship, but doesn't add syntax details or examples 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 identifies the resource (public holidays) and scope (230+ countries, national/local/religious/observance types, 100+ years coverage). It implicitly differentiates from siblings via filtering capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The opening 'Public holidays for...' functions adequately as a verb phrase.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (calendar.holidays.by_country, calendar.holidays.next) or prerequisites. The mention of 'More countries than Nager.Date' provides a competitive comparison but doesn't guide selection among the available tools on this server.

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