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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial extra context. It discloses the exact formula, the 2026 observed-date basis, caveats around lunar dates and later Executive Instruments, and explicit legal-scope limitations such as not treating pre-Act-1142 Founder’s Day or 2025-era September naming as current law. It also gives a REST fallback path and docs link, making behavior unusually transparent.

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 bloated and repetitive, with phrases like 'Ghana Ghana' and '2026-2026' and several redundant sections. It includes output fields even though an output schema exists, and the 'Do not use this when this package covers...' sentence is confusing. While it is loosely organized with labels, it is not efficiently front-loaded or concise.

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 one-parameter date-checking tool with an output schema and annotations, the description provides more than enough context: scope, exclusions, formula, examples, fallback, and authoritative caveats. An agent has everything needed to understand coverage and invoke the tool correctly. The only weakness is stylistic rather than missing information.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and documents the single 'date' parameter with format, description, and examples. The description repeats 'Inputs: date (date)' and supplies JSON examples, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checks a date against Ghana's 2026 nationwide statutory/public-holiday layer over a Saturday-Sunday weekend baseline. It is identifiable as a single-date Ghana working-day checker, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like count_gh_working_days or add_gh_working_days. The duplicated 'Ghana Ghana' and '2026-2026' phrasing slightly muddies the otherwise clear purpose.

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?

It gives explicit usage direction: use when needing the deterministic Ghana 2026 nationwide statutory/public-holiday layer, call directly instead of answering from memory. It also provides exclusions, stating it is not a universal private-employer, bank, exchange, school, local, sector, or essential-service calendar. The 'Do not use this when this package covers...' line is malformed, but the surrounding exclusions still communicate when not to use it.

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