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.