Canada Business Calendar MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the core computation rule—skipping weekends and observed public holidays—but does not clarify side effects, read-only behavior, required authorization, or error handling.

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 with no filler. The leading 'PRO.' tag is cryptic but does not significantly reduce clarity.

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 date-calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core computation but omits return value format and edge-case behavior. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps an agent might need.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for days and province by describing business-day subtraction/addition and provincial holidays, but it does not explain start date format, whether days may be negative, or valid province values.

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 operation: add/subtract N business days from a date in a province, with weekends and observed public holidays skipped. This is clear enough to distinguish it generally from holiday-listing siblings like next_holidays, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from due_date.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the operation itself: use it when calculating a date offset by business days. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to the sibling due_date tool, which may overlap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that business-day counting is province-dependent (an important behavioral trait implying a holiday calendar) and flags 'PRO' tier gating. It omits what an invalid province does, whether the result includes holidays/weekends in output, and whether access_token is required for all calls.

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?

A single dense line with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it costs almost no space.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should have specified the return shape (a date string?) and premium/token behavior. As written it is enough to construct a call but leaves the response format and province value space unspecified.

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 coverage is only 40% (start, days, and province are undocumented in the schema), but the description partially compensates by explaining that start and days feed an additive calculation and that province scopes the holiday logic and mode selects calendar vs business. It still doesn't give formats (date string shape, valid province codes, integer vs fractional 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 the specific computation (start + N calendar or business days) and the resource it produces (an invoice/contract due date) scoped to a province. It is distinguishable from siblings like business_days because it returns a date rather than a count, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 domain cue ('Invoice/contract due date') implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to business_days/next_holidays for related calculations. Usage must be inferred from the scenario name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose useful traits: result cardinality (next 3), scope (Canada only), default province (ON), and that federal vs provincial holidays are distinguished. It omits whether results include dates/names or how the two categories are marked.

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?

One tight sentence (plus the 'FREE' prefix) with scope and default front-loaded. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the 'FREE' banner is arguably noise.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers scope, default, and result type reasonably. What is left unstated is the accepted province value format and what fields the holiday entries contain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it tells the agent the parameter is a Canadian province/territory and defaults to ON (implying two-letter codes), but never defines the accepted value format or a full list.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the next 3 public holidays for a Canadian province/territory. The word 'next' plus 'public holidays' distinguishes it from the date-oriented siblings (business_days, due_date, year_planner), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 versus business_days or year_planner; the agent must infer from the wording alone. 'FREE' hints at cost but is not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at a subscription requirement with 'PRO' and the access_token schema, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how authentication actually works, or what the result contains.

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 compact sentence with the main scope front-loaded. 'PRO.' is terse but does not add unnecessary length.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description omits important invocation details such as authentication behavior, defaults, parameter interactions, and return shape.

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 coverage is only 33%, with province and federal_only undocumented in the schema. The description hints that 'one province' relates to province and federal comparison relates to federal_only, but it does not clarify defaults, allowed values, or whether federal_only excludes provincial holidays.

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 identifies the resource as public holidays for the current year and states two modes: one province or a federal comparison across Canada. It is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as next_holidays or business_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?

It gives implied usage scenarios (all holidays this year, or federal comparison), but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like next_holidays, business_days, or due_date.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.