holidays

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds two substantive disclosures: the data source ('IATA holiday database') and the actual-vs-observed date distinction, both of which shape how results should be interpreted. It does not cover rate limits or coverage caveats, but for a read-only query tool the two disclosures provide meaningful value.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the capability list is front-loaded in sentence one, sentence two adds data-source scale, sentence three adds result semantics. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 5 enum operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers four of five operations but omits 'countries' entirely. It also never states which parameters each operation requires, even though only 'operation' is marked required in the schema — an agent must infer that list needs country_code, that is_holiday needs date, etc. No return-value or failure behavior is hinted at either.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implicitly mapping operations to parameter groups (list → country_code + year, between → country_code + start_date/end_date, is_holiday → country_code + date), which the schema's per-property descriptions do not convey. The mapping is implicit rather than explicit, and the 'countries' operation is never tied to its (empty) parameter set, preventing a 5.

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 enumerates specific verbs with a clear resource: 'list all holidays for a country and year', 'check if a specific date is a holiday', 'find the next upcoming holiday', 'get holidays in a date range'. This positions it distinctly against temporal siblings like business_days and calendar, and the IATA database mention anchors its scope.

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 four enumerated query modes give clear context for when an agent would invoke this tool. However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions — e.g., no statement like 'for business-day arithmetic use business_days' — so routing relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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