calendar_business_days

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that calendar_overrides are 'per-request' corrections and gives the returned summary shape ({count, first, last}), but it never states that this is a side-effect-free computation despite the POST-style endpoint, nor says anything about permissions or failure modes.

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?

Purpose comes first in a single sentence, followed by a tight per-parameter block plus the output summary. No filler sentences; every line carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 6-parameter computation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the arguments, formats and return summary adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance (when to use this vs. the other calendar tools), which is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all six parameters, supplies the YYYY-MM-DD formats the schema omits, and clarifies include_start/include_end semantics and their True defaults. It is only slightly thin on calendar_overrides, which the schema's $defs partly covers.

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 a specific verb+resource: computing business days of a named QuantLib calendar between two dates, and even cites the underlying endpoint. It is distinguishable from siblings like calendar_holidays and calendar_advance by the 'between two dates' scope, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over calendar_holidays or calendar_advance. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the argument list.

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