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.