N営業日後/前の日付を計算

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (adding/subtracting business days) and the negative-N handling. However, it does not explain how weekendDays and customHolidays affect the calculation, or how the start date is treated if it itself falls on a non-business day. These are notable gaps, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed for a simple calculation tool.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant or irrelevant content. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose.

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?

The description covers the primary function but is sparse for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explicitly specify the return format (though 'date' is mentioned) or explain the effect of optional parameters in the description. However, the schema thoroughly documents parameters, so the core missing piece is the absence of edge-case behavior and explicit return type details.

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 no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it restates the negative-N behavior that is already documented in the businessDays parameter description. No additional meaning is contributed.

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 verb '返します' (returns) with a specific resource: the date N business days after the specified date. It also clarifies the negative-N case (N business days before), distinguishing this tool from siblings like count_business_days and is_business_day which serve different purposes.

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 calculating business-day offsets by stating the core function, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on selecting this tool versus siblings such as count_business_days or list_holidays.

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