contar_dias_uteis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions inclusive/exclusive end defaults, but fails to clarify if holidays are considered, the effect of 'uf', or edge cases like start > end. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. However, its brevity sacrifices critical details, making it less useful despite being concise.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits date format, holiday handling, error scenarios, and return value context. The presence of an output schema does not excuse missing operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It only implicitly references date parameters and inclusive_end default, but does not explain 'uf' or date format. Meaning added is minimal beyond what parameter titles provide.

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 counts business days between two dates, specifying the inclusion of start and exclusion of end by default. It uses a specific verb ('conta') and resource ('dias úteis'), and distinct from sibling tools which are validation or lookup utilities.

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 for counting business days but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'proximo_dia_util', 'listar_feriados'). No when-not-to-use or contextual prerequisites are provided.

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