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

No annotations exist and the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals nothing about behavior: how weekdays are counted, whether weekends are excluded, what date range is used, or what the return value represents. The agent cannot predict any side effects or output characteristics.

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 short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. No useful information is front-loaded because no information exists beyond a tautological repetition of the name.

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?

Even with zero parameters, the description fails to state what the tool returns, how it derives its result, or why an agent would invoke it. The complete absence of behavioral context makes the tool unusable for selection or invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage trivially, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify; the empty schema already fully documents the parameter surface.

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 pure tautology: 'Weekdays Between: Weekdays Between' restates the tool name without any verb, resource, or behavior. It does not say what the tool computes, what inputs it expects, or what output it produces. It is indistinguishable from dozens of sibling date-related tools.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like x402-days-between, x402-add-business-days, x402-week-number, or x402-is-business-day. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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