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.