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.