iran_business_days

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavior: weekend model (Friday default, Thursday optional), holiday sourcing ('supply holidays yourself or enable the fixed solar ones'), negative 'days' for add, and count's inclusive boundary. It omits return shapes and whether the start date is counted for 'add'.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and packed into a single dense sentence with a colon-introduced list; every clause carries information. It is a run-on that could be split for readability, but nothing 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 7-parameter, 3-op tool with no output schema, the description covers op semantics and configuration well but never states what each op returns (boolean, date, count). That return-format gap matters precisely because no output schema exists.

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 only 57%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'days' may be negative, that 'to' drives the 'count' op, and that weekend/holidays are configurable. It adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's type declarations, though 'includeFixedSolarHolidays' semantics remain vague.

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?

States a specific resource ('Business-day helper') and enumerates the three operations with their semantics: 'is_business_day', 'add' (days may be negative) and 'count' (inclusive of 'to'). The Iranian business-day framing distinguishes it implicitly from generic siblings like jalali_add/jalali_diff, but those siblings are never named.

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 per-op semantics imply when each mode applies, and it notes holidays can be supplied or auto-enabled, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing away from jalali_add/jalali_diff for plain date math. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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