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.