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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses meaningful traits: bundled 2024–2030 calendars, inclusive ranges, explicit weekends/closures, source attribution, coverage warnings, and a per-call payment of $0.01 USDC via x402. The payment and coverage-limit disclosures are exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from schema alone. Missing only return/error behavior details.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: capabilities first, then calendar constraints, then the coverage pointer and pricing. Slightly list-like in the middle sentence but every clause carries 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operations, date-range bounds, calendar coverage, weekends/closures, sourcing, and payment. It omits the mechanics of the paid call and any return-shape hint, but is otherwise complete enough 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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (inclusive end, weekend default, additionalClosures). The description adds the 2024–2030 date window and the inclusive-range and weekend/closure semantics, but these largely restate what individual schema properties already say. Baseline 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 specific verbs (add/subtract, count, find) and resources (business days, public holidays) with scope across countries and subdivisions. It largely distinguishes the tool's job, though 'find' does not map cleanly onto the enum operations 'next'/'intersection', leaving one operation slightly opaque.

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?

Usage is implied by listing operations and noting required date ranges, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites statement, and no exclusions. The sibling list (dns, extract, lei, etc.) is unrelated, so no routing guidance is strictly needed, but the definition never tells the agent which operation fits which scenario.

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