Check whether a date is a business day in an Australian state or territory and return the previous and next business day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| state | Yes | Australian state or territory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the read-only nature through 'Check' and states the expected outputs: whether the date is a business day plus the previous and next business day. This is sufficient for a simple, non-destructive date utility.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary check and the return values without any filler. It is concise, efficient, and every part contributes to understanding the tool.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and the returned concepts. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response shape (e.g., whether the boolean result is included alongside the dates), but the overall behavior is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The schema covers both parameters completely with descriptions and an enum for state, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 whether') with a clear resource (a date) and a well-defined scope (Australian state or territory), and also specifies the additional returned data (previous and next business day). This makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinct even though no siblings are listed.
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 a clear context: an agent should use this tool when it needs to determine business-day status for a date in an Australian state or territory. There are no exclusions or alternatives to mention, but the usage context is evident from the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is singular and clearly distinct.
A single tool name follows a clear, descriptive verb_noun pattern. There are no other tools to create inconsistencies.
The server has a narrow, focused purpose of checking business days, and one tool fully covers that responsibility. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool provides the core check for a business day and also returns adjacent business days, covering the expected functionality for an Australian business day server without obvious gaps.