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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions counting inclusive business days but fails to define what constitutes a business day (e.g., weekends, holidays). It lacks details on return values, edge cases, or dependencies.

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 a single concise sentence in Japanese with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, over-conciseness sacrifices completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It omits crucial context such as date format, holiday calendar, behavior for invalid dates, and return type. The tool is under-specified for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. It implies 'start' and 'end' are date strings but does not specify format or constraints. The description does not compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it counts business days between start and end inclusive. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'days_until' (counts days to a future date) and 'is_holiday' (checks if a date is a holiday).

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 does not mention scenarios where other tools like 'days_until' or 'next_business_day' would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions counting days and business days, but omits crucial details: what happens when the target date is in the past (returns negative?), the definition of business days (uses a holiday calendar?), and any side effects. This lack of transparency could confuse the agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient but could briefly mention parameter formats without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values (e.g., integer, units) and edge cases (e.g., past dates). The current description is too minimal for an agent to use confidently.

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 0% with two parameters. The description clarifies that 'base' defaults to today, but it does not specify the required date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or any constraints. The compensation is partial, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool calculates remaining days or business days until a specified date, specifically for deadline management. It mentions the base parameter defaults to today, which distinguishes it from siblings like business_days_between that count days between two dates.

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 provides context for deadline management and explains base default behavior, but it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., business_days_between for general date differences). The guidance is implied but lacks clear exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions the default start month but lacks details on error handling, output format, or behavior with edge cases.

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 a single sentence, concise but front-loaded. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not specify the date format, output type, or behavior with invalid inputs.

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%. The description only adds meaning about the default start month; it does not describe the date parameter format or the start_month parameter beyond its default.

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 clearly states the tool returns the fiscal year for a specified date, with default April start. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle business days, holidays, etc.

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 fiscal year calculation but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions inclusion of substitute and national holidays, but does not describe the output format, side effects, or whether it handles invalid dates. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, input format, and scope. It could mention the return type (likely boolean) but is otherwise complete.

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 provides only a string type for 'date'. The description adds the required format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and clarifies it represents a date, which significantly improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to determine if a given date (in YYYY-MM-DD format) is a Japanese holiday, including substitute and national holidays. This verbs-resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like business_days_between.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

The description mentions that the tool excludes weekends and holidays and supports negative days. However, it does not specify which holiday calendar is used, how zero days are handled, or what happens if the input date is a holiday. With no annotations provided, the description should disclose more behavioral details.

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 consists of two concise sentences in Japanese. The first sentence defines the core function, and the second adds the negative-days capability. No extraneous information is included.

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?

While the description explains the business logic, it lacks details on the return value format (e.g., date string type), zero-day behavior, and holiday calendar. Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions reduce completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying that 'days' refers to business days excluding holidays and that negative values are supported. However, it does not specify the expected date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or explain that the 'date' parameter is the starting point. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but is not complete.

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 clearly states the tool returns a date that is 'days' business days after a specified date, excluding weekends and holidays, and allows negative values for past dates. This specific verb-resource combination ('returns date after business days') distinguishes it from siblings like 'business_days_between' (counts days) and 'is_holiday' (checks if date is holiday).

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 explains core usage (adding/subtracting business days) and mentions negative days for past direction, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'days_until' or 'payment_date'. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the role of each parameter (e.g., 'adjust' for holiday handling) and the calculation logic. However, it does not cover edge cases (e.g., end-of-month handling for 'pay_day' set to 31) or the output format, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 very concise, containing only two sentences that state the purpose and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids fluff. Minor improvement could come from structuring parameters as a list, but the current form is efficient and effective.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides a basic functional overview and parameter explanations. However, it lacks examples, output specification, and error handling details (e.g., invalid dates). It is adequate for simple use but not fully complete for complex scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains four of the five parameters: closing_day, pay_month_offset, pay_day, and adjust. However, it omits 'invoice_date' entirely, which is a required parameter. Default values are not mentioned, though they are in the schema. The description adds meaning but misses one critical parameter.

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 clearly states the tool calculates payment dates from invoice dates using Japanese cut-off and payment terms. It names key parameters and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'next_business_day' and 'is_holiday' by focusing on a specific business domain. However, the description is in Japanese, which may reduce clarity for non-Japanese users.

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 the tool is used for Japanese payment term calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools like 'next_business_day' for holiday adjustments, leaving the agent to infer context.

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