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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description adds meaningful domain behavior: conversion goes through the board's dollar rate and side selects mid/buy/sell. It does not explain return format or behavior for unsupported currencies, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is still useful context.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the conversion operation and key constraints in two sentences. The Persian sentence duplicates the Persian title, causing slight redundancy but not significant verbosity.

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 read-only, 4-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers the conversion basis, IRT/IRR handling, and side behavior. It omits the return shape (converted amount, rate used) and unsupported-currency/error behavior, which leaves a gap an agent may care about.

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 75%, and the description adds important semantics beyond the schema: the IRT/IRR distinction and the ratio 1 Toman = 10 Rial, plus side defaulting to mid with buy/sell options. The amount-unit note is already in the schema, and precision/rounding is not discussed.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (an amount between two currencies), plus the conversion basis (the board's dollar rate) and special IRT/IRR handling. The sibling tools are all retrieval-oriented (get_rate, get_rates_table, etc.), so the conversion operation is clearly distinguishable even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 useful context that conversion uses the board's dollar rate and that side can be mid, buy, or sell, with mid as default. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_rate/get_rates_table or when not to use it.

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