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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks if a date is a holiday, but does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., boolean, holiday name), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place.

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's complexity (simple check with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are essential for proper usage. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this 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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any semantic details about the 'date' parameter. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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's purpose: '檢查指定日期是否為台灣假期' translates to 'Check if a specified date is a Taiwan holiday.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Taiwan holiday'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its siblings (get_holidays_in_range, get_holiday_stats), which check multiple dates or statistics rather than a single date. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinguished.

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 its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like get_holidays_in_range for checking multiple dates or get_holiday_stats for statistical information, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches holidays but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list structure, holiday details), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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's complexity (date-range filtering with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or date validation, nor does it differentiate from siblings. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions '指定日期範圍' (specified date range) but doesn't explain what 'start_date' and 'end_date' represent, their expected format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), timezone handling, or inclusivity/exclusivity rules. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb ('獲取' meaning 'get/fetch') and resource ('台灣假期' meaning 'Taiwan holidays'), specifying the scope ('指定日期範圍內' meaning 'within specified date range'). It distinguishes from 'check_holiday' (likely checks a single date) and 'get_holiday_stats' (likely provides statistics), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 its siblings ('check_holiday' and 'get_holiday_stats'). It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The only implied usage is fetching holidays within a date range, with no context about overlapping functionality or tool selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves statistics, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns aggregated data (e.g., counts, types), or handles errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, with every part contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what statistics are returned (e.g., number of holidays, types), behavioral aspects, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with this complexity and missing structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 '指定年份或年月' (specified year or year-month), which aligns with the 'year' and 'month' parameters, but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's basic types and constraints. It doesn't explain the semantics, such as what 'year' and 'month' represent (e.g., Gregorian calendar, optional month for yearly stats), failing to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('獲取' meaning 'get' or 'retrieve') and the resource ('台灣假期統計資訊' meaning 'Taiwan holiday statistics information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_holiday' or 'get_holidays_in_range', which might also involve holiday data retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 mentions '指定年份或年月' (specified year or year-month), implying usage based on time parameters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings 'check_holiday' or 'get_holidays_in_range'. There are no exclusions or alternatives stated, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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