gregorian_to_jalali

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it states only the conversion operation. It does not describe the return format, how invalid Gregorian dates are handled, or the extreme year range permitted by the schema (up to ±9007199254740991).

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple conversion tool, though it is terse enough that other dimensions suffer.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions mean the description must compensate for missing structured context, but it does not. An agent cannot tell what the return value looks like (e.g., object with year/month/day vs. a formatted string) or how invalid inputs are handled.

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%; the schema only defines year, month, and day as integers with min/max bounds and no descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as accepted formats, leap-year behavior, or expected ranges beyond 'a Gregorian date'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') and names both source and target resources ('Gregorian date' to 'Jalali calendar'), and the direction implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jalali_to_gregorian. It does not, however, differentiate from date-formatting or parsing siblings such as format_jalali_date or parse_jalali_date.

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 or mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when this conversion should be preferred over formatting (format_jalali_date), parsing (parse_jalali_date), or the reverse conversion (jalali_to_gregorian).

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