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.