iran_provinces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the set is a fixed 31 provinces, that matching is letter-variant tolerant (valuable for Persian ی/ك variants), and what each record contains — behavior an agent needs before calling. It stops short of stating ordering or exact response shape, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 sentences, zero waste: the resource and its return fields come first, then the optional filter behavior. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the data set, the fields returned, and the filter semantics. Minor gaps in output ordering and exact field naming are tolerable at this complexity.

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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining query as an optional Persian/English name filter with letter-variant tolerance. Only the matching mechanics (substring vs exact, case handling) remain unstated.

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 and resource ("List Iran's 31 provinces") and even enumerates the returned fields (ISO 3166-2 code, Persian/English names, capital). It is distinguishable from lookup-style siblings like landline_province, though it never names an alternative 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 says the query parameter is optional and describes its matching behavior (Persian or English, letter-variant tolerant), which implies when to supply it. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to a sibling such as persian_fuzzy_search for more advanced matching.

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