time_working_days_calculator

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

Without annotations, the description discloses basic behavior (count/add, holiday list) beyond the raw schema. However, it omits details about error handling, output format, or constraints (e.g., date format, signed number range). The directive to use describe_tool shifts some burden away.

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, with only two sentences covering the core functionality. The first sentence could omit 'Menu ID' for brevity, but overall it is efficient. The second sentence provides an escape hatch to describe_tool for details.

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?

Given 8 required parameters (all undefined in schema enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain valid operation values, date formats, holiday list structure, or the return value. The referral to describe_tool indicates explicit incompleteness.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It introduces two operations (count and add) but does not explain how parameters like fromYear/toYear map to these modes. The holiday array is mentioned as optional, but the schema requires it. This partial explanation leaves confusion about the parameters' roles.

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 it counts Mon-Fri working days between two dates or adds working days to a base date. It specifies the resource (working days) and actions (count, add). Among siblings like time_date_calculator or time_date_difference, this is the only working days tool, so differentiation is clear.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only implies the tool is for working-day calculations. It does not mention alternatives or context that might affect selection, such as holidays or date range limits.

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