get_next_business_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result excludes public holidays and is Monday–Friday, and describes the return format (summary string + structured data object with status and skipped holidays). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not clarify whether the input date itself counts if it's a business day.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes all essential information without redundancy. It lists the allowed regions briefly and describes the output, all without unnecessary fluff.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return value (summary string and structured data object with status and skipped holidays). It is sufficient for a moderately simple tool, though it could detail the structured object's fields further, but it is not unnecessarily vague.

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 the baseline is 3. The description references the region codes and date format, but these are already fully covered in the schema descriptions. No additional meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's function: given a date and ANZ region, return the next business day excluding public holidays. It uses a specific verb ('return') and identifies the resource ('next business day'), and distinguishes it from siblings like is_public_holiday by focusing on computing the next business day.

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?

The description implies usage (when you need the next business day) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as is_public_holiday or get_school_term. No exclusions or alternative comparisons provided.

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