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. 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.