영업일·공휴일·기한 날짜 계산

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses local data/no auth key, warns that legal amendments change holidays, explains Workers' Day divergence, and states that missing/unverified data produces warnings that should prevent the agent from asserting results. It also mentions the result includes skipped non-business days and legal basis clauses.

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 longer than ideal but front-loads the core function in the first sentence and organizes warnings and behavior into clear bullets. Each sentence adds meaningful operational context, so it remains efficient despite its length.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers return contents (skipped days, legal basis, warnings, notes), data-source caveats, and sibling division of labor. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results safely.

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 four parameters with examples. The description only reiterates general support for N-business-day/N-calendar-day calculations and adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description declares '한국 영업일·공휴일 기준의 날짜 계산을 담당합니다' and enumerates concrete functions: checking a date, adding N business/calendar days, and counting remaining business days. It also distinguishes itself from sibling check_disclosure_duty by delegating disclosure-type deadline determinations.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool for any date question involving deadlines/business days/holidays because model calendar knowledge may be outdated. It also provides exclusion guidance: check_disclosure_duty handles deadline determinations for specific disclosure types, including legal basis.

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