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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: 'The index series is official data — never approximate it' and 'Dates are Jalali.' These add important operational constraints. However, it does not mention output format, default handling, or potential errors, leaving some gaps.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states the action and legal basis, the second provides a critical data constraint, and the third gives the date system. No redundant or filler content; it is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 calculator tool with no output schema, the description covers the core legal basis, data source, and date system, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It could add a note about return values or handling of optional months, but the provided context is solid and appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it provides context about the calculation basis (art. 522 and Central Bank index) and the Jalali date system, which clarifies the intended meaning of start_year/end_year without restating them.

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 a specific action: 'Calculate خسارت تأخیر تأدیه under art. 522 ق.آ.د.م using the Central Bank price index.' It names the legal basis and the method, distinguishing this from sibling calculation tools (e.g., calculate_diyeh, calculate_inheritance) which cover different legal damages.

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 computing late-payment damages under article 522 with the Central Bank index, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for an informed agent, but explicit guidance is missing.

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