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.