convert_rial_toman

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical domain fact (1 toman = 10 rial), which prevents a wrong-direction conversion, but says nothing about rounding/precision, negative or zero amounts, or the output shape.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the resource, with the conversion ratio parenthetically appended. Nothing is wasted and nothing extraneous is present.

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 three-parameter arithmetic utility with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — the core mechanic and ratio are given. The remaining gap is unstated rounding/precision behavior and the unit basis of 'amount', which a careful agent would want.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the relationship between the two enum-valued parameters and the conversion factor, but never states that 'amount' is denominated in the 'from' unit, leaving a real ambiguity in the most important parameter.

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 ('between rial and toman') and even supplies the exact exchange ratio, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling covers currency conversion, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., calculate_vat for tax math). The usage is arguably self-evident from the name, but the description itself adds no routing or exclusion information.

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