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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses business-day versus calendar-day calculation and rolling to the next business day, but it omits important behavior such as the default starting date, holiday handling, authentication expectations, and return format.

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 useful examples and no wasted explanatory prose. The unexplained 'PRO.' prefix is a minor structural blemish.

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 calculation tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the starting-date behavior, holiday/weekend rules beyond the roll, authentication, or result 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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It implies the meaning of days and business mode, but it does not explain the from parameter, which is critical for calculating the due date, and leaves the access_token parameter to the schema.

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 that the tool computes a due date after N business or calendar days, including the next-business-day roll behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling business_days tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives implied use cases such as Net 30/60, ACH settlement, and contract notice periods. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of business_days or other date-related siblings, nor does it give exclusions.

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