payment_date

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.