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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses paid auth mode, pricing per call, endpoint method, and the conversion ratio. It could say more about output shape or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 definition is padded with origin URL, hostname, brand, family key, repeated summary/source text, and multiple keyword lines. Useful information exists but is not front-loaded and the repeated metadata harms conciseness.

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 two-parameter conversion tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers auth, price, endpoint, ratio, and use cases. However, it still leaves parameter direction and return behavior under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It gives examples that imply amount and direction, but it never explicitly defines the `from` parameter, its default, or whether `amount` is in the `from` unit, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: convert between Iranian rial and toman, with the exact conversion ratio (1 toman = 10 rial). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling utilities like number_to_words_fa or iran_amount_to_words.

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?

It provides explicit use cases and keywords such as converting 125000 rials to tomans and converting a toman price back to rials. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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