next_business_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that weekends and public holidays are skipped, that inclusive flag affects whether the start date qualifies, that subdiv filters by region, that ValueError is raised on invalid inputs, and that there's a ~10-year search limit. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 well-organized with a clear first sentence, bullet-pointed args, and sections for returns and raises. It is concise without being terse—every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers input details, behavior, output keys, and error conditions. The output schema exists (not shown but referenced in description), so description doesn't need to detail return values further. It references get_supported_countries for subdiv values, showing awareness of related tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying format for 'date' (ISO 8601), case-insensitive normalization for 'country', behavior of 'inclusive' (True/False default), and 'subdiv' with an example (case-sensitive, optional, region-specific). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Return the next business day on/after (inclusive) or strictly after date' and explains it skips weekends and public holidays. It is specific about the resource (business day) and action (return next), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like is_business_day or previous_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 says 'Use this to move forward to the soonest working day', which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternatives like is_business_day for checking a specific date. The context signals list sibling tools, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions.

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