taiwan-holiday

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.