calculate_working_days

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value structure ({working_days, public_holidays_excluded}) and the country parameter's effect. It does not mention any side effects, limits, or performance traits, but the basic behavior is clear.

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: the first defines core purpose and feature, the second adds return type and sibling reference. No redundant words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 date-range tool, the description covers key aspects (working days, holiday option, return shape) and references a bundle for related tools. It does not discuss edge cases like date order or format, but the schema handles format. The output schema exists (implied), so return details are adequate.

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 already has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'optional French public holiday exclusion' for country='FR'), but the schema already describes the enum and default. Baseline 3 is 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 uses a specific verb ('Count working days Mon-Fri') and clearly identifies the resource ('between two dates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the optional French public holiday exclusion and referencing related 'temps-rh' calculators via list_bundles.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (count working days with optional holiday exclusion) and directs to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-French holiday scenarios.

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