AU Agent Utilities

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

Reveals important behavior: positive/negative direction and start date exclusion, which adds beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether state-specific public holidays are applied, how weekends are handled, or what the result format is, leaving the agent to assume the exact business-day semantics.

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 short sentences, each carrying a useful detail: primary operation, direction, and start-date treatment. No filler or tautology.

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?

The description explains the core logic but omits output format and does not differentiate from calculate_australian_deadline. Given simple schema and no output schema, an agent could call the tool correctly but may be uncertain about return value and tool selection.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (date format, state enum, business_days meaning). The description only repeats the direction semantics already in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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?

States the specific operation ('Add or subtract Australian business days from a date') and the scoping parameter (state/territory). It differentiates from check/count siblings by describing a shift operation, but does not explicitly distinguish from calculate_australian_deadline, which may be a close alternative.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is given; the description only defines the operation. An agent must infer when this is appropriate and would not know whether calculate_australian_deadline or count_australian_business_days is more suitable for a given request.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the key calculation options: calendar vs business days, start-date counting, and rolling to next or previous business day. However, it largely paraphrases schema fields and omits details such as the output format, error handling, or the exact role of the state parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the three key distinguishing features without any filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's behavior easy to grasp quickly.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main calculation rules, but it does not specify the return value representation, behavior on invalid inputs, or how to select this tool over its siblings. While sufficient for basic invocation, an agent would benefit from more explicit guidance.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds only high-level references to the start-date counting rule and rolling behavior, which correspond to include_start_date and roll_if_non_business_day. This meets the baseline but doesn't provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema.

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's function: calculating an Australian deadline with configurable calendar or business day counting, a start-date counting rule, and optional rolling behavior. This specific verb and resource make the purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling calculate_australian_business_date beyond the deadline-specific context.

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 the tool should be used for Australian deadline calculations but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like calculate_australian_business_date or count_australian_business_days. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: a business-day check plus returning adjacent business days. However, it leaves material questions open — whether state public holidays are factored in (only implied by 'business day in an Australian state or territory'), how the previous/next values are formatted, and behavior on weekends.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb and core purpose appear first, and the return behavior is appended in the same breath. Every word 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?

The tool has two required parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return shape; it names the returned items (previous/next business day) but not their structure. Holiday semantics are implied but not explicit. Adequate for a basic call, but an agent can't fully predict the response format.

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 100%: the date parameter has a YYYY-MM-DD format description with regex, and the state parameter has a full enum of Australian states/territories. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') naming the resource ('whether a date is a business day in an Australian state or territory') and states the additional returned values (previous and next business day). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculate_ and count_ tools without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings like calculate_australian_business_date, calculate_australian_deadline, or count_australian_business_days. The intended selection condition (verifying a single date's status as opposed to computing offsets or counts) is left entirely to inference from tool names.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that boundary inclusion is explicit, addressing a common counting ambiguity. However, it does not mention whether weekends and public holidays are excluded, how invalid date orders are handled, or what exactly happens with the state-specific holiday calendar.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies a critical counting rule without wasting words.

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 counting tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well: counting business days, state specificity, and boundary handling. It stops short of explicitly mentioning return type, holiday handling, or date ordering behavior, but these are largely inferable from the tool name and schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the important note about explicit boundary inclusion, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('business days between two Australian calendar dates for a specified state or territory'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like calculate_australian_business_date or check_australian_business_day by focusing on range counting rather than single-day checking or date calculation.

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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over its siblings, such as calculate_australian_business_date or calculate_australian_deadline. It implies usage for counting business days in a range, but does not state exclusions or suggest alternatives for related tasks.

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