get_workdays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: weekends and holidays are excluded, makeup workdays (補班日) are counted and listed separately, and a mismatch between upstream records and calendar days raises an error rather than silently treating missing days as workdays. It stops short of describing the exact return shape or data-source coverage/limits.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by mode rules and edge-case semantics; every sentence carries information with no filler. Density is high but the structure remains scannable.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers mode selection, counting semantics, error behavior, and even notes that makeup workdays are returned separately. What is missing is a fuller picture of the output/return structure, though that is a minor gap given the task's clarity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the pairing constraints for each parameter; baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter rule that the two modes are mutually exclusive ('不要同時指定'), which the schema does not state, pushing it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('計算工作天數') and immediately defines the two supported query modes (whole month via year+month, range via start_date+end_date). It is clearly distinguishable from the holiday-oriented siblings (check_holiday, get_next_holidays, etc.) because it describes a counting/aggregation operation rather than a lookup.

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?

It explains when to use each mode (year+month for a full month, start_date+end_date for a range) and explicitly forbids combining them ('兩種查法請擇一，不要同時指定'). It does not name or compare against alternative tools, so it gives clear context but no exclusions relative to siblings.

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