business_days

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It does add a valuable behavioral trait: 'Does NOT assume Saturday/Sunday weekend globally.' However, it does not disclose return value formats, operation-specific parameter expectations, or edge-case behavior such as invalid dates or ambiguous holiday definitions.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds relevant context: operation list, country/holiday support, and the weekend assumption clarification.

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 8 parameters, 7 operations, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain which parameters each operation requires (e.g., count requires start_date and end_date), nor does it describe return types. This leaves substantial room for incorrect invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic grouping by pairing operations with implied parameters (e.g., 'add business days' implies date+count, 'count business days between dates' implies start_date/end_date), but it doesn't go beyond that to clarify conditional requirements per operation.

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 enumerates the specific operations (is_business_day, next, previous, add, count, last_of_month, range) and clearly frames the tool as business-day calculations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like holidays and calculate_date by focusing specifically on business-day logic and even notes the global weekend assumption.

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 implies usage for business-day calculations and mentions country-specific holidays/weekends, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings like holidays or calculate_date, nor when not to use it. No exclusion or boundary statements are provided.

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