Count business days

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what the tool returns: the business-day count, calendar total, and weekend/holiday counts, which gives a useful model of behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the important limitation that there is no built-in national holiday calendar and that holidays must be passed by the caller; that information exists in the schema instead.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately states the return values, which is exactly the information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 calculation tool with four documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation, use context, and returned components. The only minor gap is that the description leaves the holiday-calendar limitation implicit, but the schema explicitly covers it, so the agent can still call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds use-case context and return semantics but does not provide meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. A baseline of 3 is therefore appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Count the business days between two dates in a place.' It also names concrete use cases ('delivery dates and payment terms') and the output components, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool overlaps, so further differentiation is unnecessary.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: counting business days in a place, especially for delivery dates and payment terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to offer the same calculation, so the context is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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