Türkiye Business Days & Public Holidays

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the holiday basis (Law 2429 plus Diyanet), the supported date window, the Mon-Fri-minus-holidays rule, and that the start date is excluded. The half-day-from-13:00 rule is the kind of edge case an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the return semantics before the calendar and half-day caveats. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema types.

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?

Output schema covers the return value and annotations cover safety, so what remains is domain rules, which the description supplies thoroughly including the validity window. The one gap is that the `calendar` parameter options, a meaningful mode switch, are never explained in prose.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining negative `days` and the half-day concept behind the `half_days` enum. It does not, however, describe the three `calendar` modes (standard/public_sector/tcmb), which are left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and result ('Returns the date that is N business days after ... a start date in Türkiye'), which unambiguously separates it from count_business_days and check_business_day. The scope (Türkiye, 2022-2035, official calendar) is concrete and verifiable.

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?

Gives motivating use cases (payment terms, legal deadlines) and the negative-N convention for going backwards, which tells an agent when this is the right tool. It never names the siblings or explicitly rules out counting/checking use cases, so the differentiation stays implicit.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine domain context the annotations cannot: the legal basis of the calendar (Law 2429 plus Diyanet), the Monday–Friday-minus-holidays definition, and the 13:00 eve cutoff.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it returns, what calendar it follows with its date range, and how business/half days are defined. Front-loaded with the core answer, no filler, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

Return values are covered by an output schema and safety by annotations, so the remaining burden is domain scoping, which the description handles well including the 2022–2035 limit. It stops short of saying what happens for out-of-range dates, a minor gap for a lookup tool.

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 100% and the three calendar enums are described there, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by supplying the underlying rule for the half_days parameter ('Eves ... are half days (holiday from 13:00)'), which tells the agent why the enum exists and what it changes.

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 verb and resource ('Tells whether a date is a business day in Türkiye') and additionally discloses the two extra facts returned: the holiday name and half-day status. This functionally separates it from list_holidays and count_business_days, 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?

Use is implied by the purpose rather than stated: nothing says 'use this to validate a single date' versus using count_business_days or add_business_days. The coverage window (2022-01-01 to 2035-12-31) is a useful boundary hint, but there are no explicit when/when-not rules or sibling routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral substance: the supported range 2022-01-01 to 2035-12-31, the legal basis of the holiday set (Law 2429 + Diyanet), and the half-day rule applied from 13:00. It stops short of stating what happens for out-of-range or reversed dates, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, range, business-day definition, half-day rule) with the most important scope and inclusive-boundary facts front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the interpretive ambiguities that matter: inclusive endpoints, holiday model, supported date range, and half-day treatment. Only edge-case behavior (dates outside 2022–2035, to < from) is left unstated.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by specifying that both endpoints are included, a semantic the schema does not state. It also characterizes the calendar variants at a business level (administrative leave from 2026, no central-bank bulletin on eves), reinforcing rather than merely repeating the enum documentation.

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?

A precise verb+resource ('Counts business days') with explicit jurisdiction (Türkiye) and inclusive-boundary semantics, which is much more specific than the sibling 'check_business_day'. It never names the siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone, but the counting-between-dates framing is distinctive enough to separate it.

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 implied by the tool's framing rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for counting days across a range versus checking a single date or adding days. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to add_business_days, check_business_day or list_holidays as alternatives.

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?

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable domain context beyond that: the legal sources (Law 2429 plus Diyanet), the supported window 2022–2035, the business-day definition, and the 13:00 half-day rule for eves. It does not say how out-of-range years are handled, which keeps it below a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining sentences carry useful coverage and half-day semantics. It is a little dense, and the business-day definition is tangential to listing holidays, but nothing is gratuitous.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation and read-only annotations, the description supplies the remaining domain context an agent needs: calendar authority, supported year window, and half-day eve behavior. Only the out-of-range or error behavior is left unstated.

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 100% and the single year parameter is already documented with its 2022–2035 range. The description only restates 'of a year' and the same range, adding no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: lists all public holidays of a given year in Türkiye, with names, types, half-day eves and administrative leave. The resource is clearly distinct from the business-day siblings, though it never names or contrasts with 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the holiday calendar for a year. There is no explicit when-to-use versus check_business_day, count_business_days or add_business_days, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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