Workday Calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: what the calculation accounts for (holidays, weekends, make-up workdays), what the response includes (previous/next business day), and a concrete cost of $0.001 USDC on Base via x402, which is important for call planning.

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 tight sentence front-loads the core operation, then appends the return detail and the cost. No wasted words, and the most decision-relevant information (what it computes) comes first.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the computation, the output shape (boolean plus adjacent business days), and the payment mechanism. Only explicit sibling routing is missing, which is minor against the rest of the coverage.

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 100%, with 'date' documented as YYYY-MM-DD and 'country' as ISO alpha-2. The description adds only the phrase 'in a country,' which does not extend the format or semantics beyond what the schema already spells out, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource combination ('whether a date is a business day in a country') and clarifies it is holiday/weekend/make-up-day aware. It also declares the return payload (previous and next business day), which distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like business_days_add and business_days_count. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 makes clear what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to choose it versus the sibling tools. There is no 'use this instead of business_days_count' routing, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites beyond the implicit country/date.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required x402 payment of $0.002 USDC on Base and the country-dependent holiday calendar. It doesn't spell out edge-case behavior (e.g., what the returned date represents), keeping it at 4.

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, front-loaded with the core function, followed by use cases, then the cost disclosure. The pricing sentence is not filler for an agent that must pay per call, so every sentence 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?

For a read-only 3-parameter computation with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient; the phrase 'Date that is...' implies the return is a date value. It would be stronger if it stated the return format explicitly (since there is no output schema), so it lands at 4.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that negative 'days' moves backward in time and that 'country' selects the business-day calendar, which the terse schema descriptions do not convey.

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 a specific computation: a date N business days after or before a start date, parameterized by country. That is far more than a restatement of the name, but it never names the sibling tools (business_days_count, business_day) to make the add-vs-count distinction explicit.

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?

It gives concrete use contexts (T+2 settlement, SLA and filing deadlines) and clarifies the negative-days case, which tells an agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusions a 5 requires.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds two non-trivial constraints: the max 3-year span and a $0.002 USDC cost via x402 on Base. Disclosing a paid, metered call is exactly the kind of thing the agent needs before invoking.

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, front-loaded with the core semantics, then the hard limit and the payment notice. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what comes back — a count plus the weekday holidays — along with the 3-year cap and the cost. Return formatting details are the only meaningful gap, and they are minor for a scalar-count tool.

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 country (ISO alpha-2), start and end (YYYY-MM-DD) are already documented. The description only adds the inclusivity of the [start, end] boundary, which is a modest but real clarification 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 states a specific verb-and-resource pairing: counting business days within an inclusive [start, end] range, plus the weekday holidays in that range. That is clearly distinct from business_day (single day), business_days_add (arithmetic on a date) and holidays (holiday lookup), even though those siblings are never named.

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 rather than stated: range counting with an inclusive boundary is described, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need a count rather than a list' or pointer to business_days_add for offsetting. An agent can infer the choice, but the description does not make it.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description earns credit for adding what they cannot: a paid call costing $0.002 USDC on Base via x402, which is material to an agent deciding whether to invoke. It still omits failure behavior (unknown ISO code, unsupported year) and whether results are cached or deterministic.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the payment precondition. Nothing is padded, though the cost note could be phrased more tightly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does hint at the payload contents (holiday list, weekend definition, make-up workdays), which is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. A brief note on the result shape or on error cases for bad country/year would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema (year as YYYY, country as ISO alpha-2), so baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'country and year' and adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g., case sensitivity of the country code, year boundaries).

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 a concrete resource and scope: national public holidays for a country and year, plus weekend definition and make-up workdays. It is clearly distinguishable in practice from the business-day arithmetic siblings, but it never names them or states the distinction explicitly.

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 only implied by the resource ('holidays' vs. business day math). There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement, no note about which sibling to pick for counting business days versus listing holidays, and no guidance on valid country codes or year ranges.

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