jp_check_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the available date range for public holidays (2020-2031), which is a significant constraint, and telegraphs the output flags (weekday, weekend/public-holiday, business-day). This goes beyond a simple tautology, though it omits details about out-of-range behavior or error handling.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that open with the core action and then immediately list return values and a key limitation. Every clause adds value, no filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: purpose, output indicators, and a critical date-range caveat. It does not describe fallback behavior for invalid dates or explain how holidays are calculated, but the core usage is sufficiently clear. Without an output schema, mentioning the flag types compensates well.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'date' parameter with format YYYY-MM-DD. The description adds semantic context by specifying it is a Japanese calendar date and implying business-day checks, but does not add new syntactic details. Thus it meets the baseline for well-documented schema parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'whether a Japanese calendar date is a business day', immediately distinguishing it from sibling date tools like jp_shift_days and jp_count_days. It clearly states what outputs are returned, further clarifying its unique role.

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 usage context is implied: if you need to know if a date is a business day or get holiday status, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, lacking the comparative guidance found in higher-scoring descriptions.

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