calc_business_days

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions holidays but does not explain how holidays are determined, whether custom holiday inputs are required, or how regional defaults work. There is also no mention of date formats, potential side effects, or edge cases. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, composed of two fragments. While there is no fluff, it is under-specified to the point of offering almost no actionable information. The phrase 'COMPUTE.' is redundant and the rest does not provide enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's interface or behavior. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to construct a valid request, what response to expect, or how to handle variants like custom holidays or region-specific rules. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema includes six parameters with zero description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to parameter names such as operation, start_date, or custom_holidays. The phrase 'business-day arithmetic' vaguely implies the operation parameter, but it does not clarify valid values, date formats, or how parameters interact. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'Business-day arithmetic with holidays,' which clearly indicates a tool for date calculations involving business days. It distinguishes itself from sibling calc_* tools like calc_metric and calc_currency_convert by focusing specifically on business-day logic. However, the exact operations (e.g., adding days, counting days between dates) are not enumerated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely a statement of purpose and does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or any exclusions. An agent is left without context for selecting this tool over similar date-related tools.

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