AU Agent Utilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses sign conventions and the important edge case that the start date is excluded, which adds real value. However, it does not state the return format, how business days are defined (e.g., public holidays), or error behavior.

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 adding distinct information—the core operation, the sign conventions, and the start-date exclusion rule. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the essential operation but leaves gaps: it does not state what the tool returns (presumably a date), and it does not define what constitutes an Australian business day in terms of public holidays. Given no output schema or annotations, the agent must make assumptions about return type and holiday handling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly stating that the start date is excluded from the calculation, a nuance not present in the schema, and reinforces the direction semantics for business_days.

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 ('Add or subtract') and resource ('Australian business days from a date'), with geographical scope ('specified state or territory'). It clearly identifies the core operation and distinguishes it from siblings that check or count business days, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculate_australian_deadline, check_australian_business_day, or count_australian_business_days. The description explains what the tool does but not when it should be selected over its siblings.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the core calculation modes, the start-date counting rule, and optional rolling behavior, but it does not mention what the tool returns, how public holidays are handled per state, or the defaults for optional parameters. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema but leaves some important behavioral details implicit.

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 dense sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the tool's main purpose and then compactly enumerates the key behavioral options, every part earning 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 is moderately complex with 6 parameters, 3 enums, and no output schema. The description captures the core decision surface but does not state return-value behavior or clarify that business-day calculations are state-specific and exclude public holidays. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking this tool without additional context.

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 all six parameters in detail. The description adds conceptual context by referencing 'start-date counting rule' and 'optional rolling', which map to include_start_date and roll_if_non_business_day, but it does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Calculate an Australian deadline') and clearly distinguishes the tool from count/check siblings by describing calendar/business day counting, start-date inclusion, and rolling behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource focus on 'deadline' differentiates it well enough.

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 when computing a deadline in Australia with either calendar-day or business-day logic, and supports start-date counting and rollover options. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over calculate_australian_business_date or when not to use it, but the intent is reasonably inferable.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only check and explicitly states the output behavior: returning the previous and next business day. It does not detail edge cases like how public holidays are sourced or whether the input date itself is included in the returned range, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 focused sentence that states the action, the resource, and the return value without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every part 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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and the high-level return contract. It could be slightly more precise about the output format or whether the input date is included in the returned business-day range, but the essential context for calling the tool is present.

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 fully documents both parameters: date format and state enum. The description mentions 'date' and 'Australian state or territory' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema 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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('whether a date is a business day in an Australian state or territory'), and also states the secondary behavior of returning the previous and next business day. This distinguishes it from siblings like count_australian_business_days and calculate_australian_business_date because it is explicitly a checker that returns adjacent days.

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 is for checking business-day status and retrieving neighboring business days, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it. No explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are provided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully signals that boundary inclusion is explicit and that counting is state/territory-specific, but it does not state default inclusion behavior or edge cases such as reversed date order. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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 with no filler. The purpose is stated immediately, and the additional boundary-inclusion note earns its place by addressing a common source of ambiguity.

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 relatively simple counting tool, the description plus fully documented schema cover the key decisions: state/territory selection, date formatting, and inclusion flags. No output schema exists, but the return type is strongly implied by 'Count'. It lacks only alternative-routing context, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 all five parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds only the general notion of explicit boundary inclusion, which does not meaningfully extend what the schema already says. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('business days between two Australian calendar dates for a specified state or territory'). This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_australian_business_date and check_australian_business_day, which are about computing a date or checking a single day.

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 this tool is for counting business-day spans, but it never names alternative tools or states when not to use it. The context is clear enough for straightforward use, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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