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 that the tool reads coin prices and the adjustment index from the database instead of guessing, and explains the conditional behavior around marriage_year. It does not mention side effects or output format, but these are less critical for a read-only 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds critical information. The description is concise without being under-specified.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: data sources, conditional parameter usage, and a labeling warning. It does not describe the return format, but that is not explicitly required given the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between cash_toman and marriage_year (needed to adjust to today's value) and clarifies that the cash portion stays nominal without it. This goes beyond the simple schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as calculating the present-day value of a مهریه, specifying both coin and cash components. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculate_* tools by referencing the live market rate and the Central Bank index, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides actionable guidance: it instructs to ask for marriage_year when there is a cash portion and warns against calling nominal cash 'ارزش روز'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of another sibling, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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