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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether it counts inclusive/exclusive endpoints, how it handles holidays, what date format is required, or what the output shape is. For a date-calculation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical 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?

It is short, but the single clause is a pure duplication of the tool name, so no sentence earns its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 a description that says nothing beyond the name, an agent has no basis to call this correctly. There is no explanation of the return value, date format, or boundary behavior.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema text itself is uninformative ('Start to process', 'End to process'), and the description adds nothing to clarify expected date format or inclusivity. Even at high coverage the description contributes zero meaning here.

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 tool name repeated verbatim: 'Weekdays Between: Weekdays Between'. It restates the title rather than stating a specific verb+resource, giving no more than the name itself already conveys and no differentiation from siblings like x402-next-weekday or x402-weekend-or-weekday.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, what it returns, or how it differs from adjacent date tools such as x402-days-between, x402-hours-between, or x402-business-day. The agent gets no routing signal.

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