decimal_to_persian_words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partly does. The examples usefully disclose output shape and that percent appends درصد, but it says nothing about default mode behavior, what halfAsNim changes (presumably rendering 0.5 as نیم), or how malformed input is handled.

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 compact sentence with two worked examples — very little waste. It is front-loaded on the domain but opens as a sentence fragment with no verb, which costs a bit of immediate legibility.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should document the three parameters and the return string format. It demonstrates output nicely via examples but leaves halfAsNim and mode defaults entirely unaddressed, which is a material gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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% across three parameters, so the schema gives no meaning at all. The description indirectly covers mode (decimal/percent/fraction examples) and hints at value formatting, but halfAsNim is completely unexplained and no default for mode is stated.

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 names the resource precisely (decimals, percents, fractions) and shows concrete input→output examples, so the transformation is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling integer/price word converters (number_to_persian_words, price_to_persian_words), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for decimals/percents/fractions while number_to_persian_words covers integers. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling alternatives, and no guidance on invalid input or unsupported formats.

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