calculate_business_days

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core behavior ('skips weekends and optionally public holidays'), which is essential. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid dates), performance characteristics, or what happens with edge cases like overlapping dates. The behavioral information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about weekend/holiday skipping. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 calculation tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core purpose and key behavioral trait (holiday skipping), but doesn't explain return values or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more information about what the tool returns would be helpful for completeness.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the optional holiday skipping feature, which relates to the 'country' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('calculate', 'add/subtract') and resources ('business days between two dates', 'business days from a date'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing exclusively on business day calculations, unlike tools like 'date_diff' (general date difference) or 'get_festivals' (holiday information).

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 context by mentioning 'skips weekends and optionally public holidays', suggesting when holiday-aware calculations are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'date_diff' for calendar days or 'get_festivals' for holiday lookup. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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