get_holidays_in_range

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.