czech_working_daysCzech public holidays for a year (including movable Easter feasts) and, for a specific date, whether it is a working day and the next working day a statutory deadline would shift to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional date (YYYY-MM-DD) to test for working-day status | |
| year | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the output semantics: it returns holidays and, for a date, working-day status and the next working day a deadline would shift to. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and packs the key behaviors without wordiness. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (holidays, working-day status, next working day). It covers both parameter use cases and the tool's scope (Czech calendar), making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 50% (only 'date' has a description). The tool description compensates by clarifying that 'year' is the calendar year for holiday lookup and 'date' is the specific date to test. It adds meaning to the otherwise undescribed 'year' parameter and reinforces the semantics of 'date'.
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 provides Czech public holidays for a year and, for a given date, returns its working-day status and the next working day for statutory deadlines. It uses specific verbs like 'provides' and 'whether it is' and distinguishes itself from sibling tax-specific tools by focusing on working-day calculations.
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 implies clear usage contexts: 'for a year' for annual holiday lists and 'for a specific date' for working-day checks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but calc_set_aside overlaps with compute_year (both compute safe-to-spend) and the flat-tax tools (check_flat_tax_eligibility, get_flat_tax_band, calc_flat_tax_settlement) could be confused without careful reading. Overall, descriptions are detailed enough to resolve ambiguity.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but 'czech_working_days' is a noun phrase and the verbs vary (calc, compute, check, compare, convert, estimate, get). The use of both 'calc' and 'compute' for calculations is a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is still readable and predictable.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a complex tax domain. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect (calculations, eligibility, deadlines, penalties, rules, currency, working days) and none seems redundant, making the count appropriate.
The tool surface covers the main OSVČ tax lifecycle: income tax, social/health insurance, flat tax, VAT thresholds, deadlines, penalties, and working days. A notable gap is the absence of a dedicated advance-payment (zálohy) calculation tool, though compute_year and get_rule_source can partially address this.