Add or subtract Australian business days from a date for a specified state or territory. Positive numbers move forward and negative numbers move backward. The start date is excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Starting date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| state | Yes | Australian state or territory | |
| business_days | Yes | Number of business days to shift. Positive = forward, negative = backward, 0 = unchanged. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.