calculate_business_days

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

The description discloses a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a behavioral trait related to payment. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, what inputs it requires, what outputs it returns, or any side effects. The cost info is valuable but insufficient for full behavioral understanding.

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 extremely short, which is efficient but at the cost of substance. The first sentence redundantly repeats the tool name, and 'Other Utilities tool' is filler. The cost sentence provides useful administrative information. While compact, the content misses essential functional details, so it earns a middle score rather than a higher one.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a nondescript params schema, the description needed to supply comprehensive functional context. It fails to explain what 'business days' calculation entails, what parameters are expected, what the return value looks like, or any assumptions about weekends/holidays. This leaves a major gap for an agent trying to use the tool.

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?

The input schema contains a single generic 'params' object described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which provides no detail about actual expected fields (e.g., start date, end date, holidays). Although schema description coverage is claimed as 100%, it covers only a placeholder parameter. The tool description adds no parameter meanings or examples, so an agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 simply restates the tool name ('calculate business days') without specifying the exact operation, such as whether it computes days between dates, adds business days, or handles holidays. It adds only 'Other Utilities tool' as a vague category, which does not distinguish it from sibling date-related tools like date_calc or due_date_calc. This is a tautology with minimal informative content.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or how it differs from alternative utilities. The phrase 'Other Utilities tool' is a classification label, not guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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