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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about the operation, return format, edge cases (e.g., holidays vs weekends), date format expectations, or side effects. Even the basic read/mutate nature is unclear.

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 one redundant clause that repeats the name. It is under-specified rather than concise; no information is front-loaded because there is no information at all. Every word is wasted.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only a single vague parameter, the context is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer the expected input format, the calculation logic, the return value, or how to handle failure cases. This is inadequate for any practical use.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The parameter 'date' is described as 'Date to process', which provides minimal meaning but no format, requiredness, or example. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema already says, yet baseline holds due to coverage.

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 is the phrase 'Next Business Day: Next Business Day', which merely restates the tool name. It does not state what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or what result it produces. An agent cannot tell whether this computes a date, validates a date, or something else.

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 tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as x402-add-business-days, x402-next-weekday, and x402-is-business-day are clearly related, yet the description gives no exclusions, conditions, or comparisons. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over those.

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