format_iran_phone

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 accepted input forms (Persian digits, +98, 0098), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the value is validated, what output format is produced by default, or what happens on invalid input.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical examples are dense but serve a purpose; minor ambiguity between input and output examples is the only flaw.

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 formatting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the returned format and the role of persianDigits. It leaves the output contract and the second parameter entirely unaddressed, so an agent cannot fully predict the result.

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 should compensate. It explains accepted input syntax but never mentions the persianDigits boolean, which appears to control output digit rendering and is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 conveys that the tool produces display formats for Iranian mobile and landline numbers, which is a clear resource and operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling normalize_mobile, which likely also handles phone formatting, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize_mobile or mobile_operator, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the topic.

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