is_korean_business_day

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. It implies a read-only check but never defines what makes a day a 'business day' (weekends only? public holidays too?), and with no output schema it never indicates the return value (presumably a boolean).

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?

A single efficient sentence with the format hint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it 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?

For a simple one-parameter check this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the definition should state the return type and the holiday/weekend rule. Those two omissions are the main gaps.

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%, and the schema only labels the parameter 'Date' as a string. The description adds the accepted format YYYY-MM-DD, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about timezone or invalid-input behavior, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (확인합니다 / check) and a specific resource (whether a date is a Korean business day), so an agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like korean_holidays. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 versus korean_holidays or the other siblings, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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