check_taiwan_trading_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response structure, success/error fields, possible failure reasons, and example outcomes. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a read-only date-checking tool the behavior is described sufficiently.

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 well-structured with purpose, examples, arguments, returns, and error conditions. It front-loads the core purpose and each section adds necessary information. Although lengthy, the length is justified because there is no output schema and the return structure must be explained.

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 one-parameter read-only date check with no annotations and no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it gives the input format, the decision logic, examples, return fields, and error scenarios. The only minor gap is distinguishing it from get_taiwan_holiday_info, which was already reflected in the usage-guidelines score.

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 input schema only declares 'date' as a string with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format, providing concrete examples, and explaining the parameter purpose. This is exactly the kind of compensation needed for a single low-information schema 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 checks whether a given date is a Taiwan stock market trading day, with specific conditions (not weekend, not holiday). It is unambiguous and distinct in function from price/order tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_taiwan_holiday_info, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 gives examples and explains the trading-day condition, making the intended use clear. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_taiwan_holiday_info, nor does it describe exclusions or edge cases like makeup workdays or rescheduled holidays.

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