jalali_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait – month overflow clamps to month length – which is not derivable from the schema. However, it omits day-overflow semantics (does adding days roll into months?), how negative deltas behave, and what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The operational detail (overflow clamping) is placed in a parenthetical right where it is relevant, so every clause earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a 6-parameter sign-sensitive date tool, the description is thinner than the complexity warrants. Return format, day-overflow behavior, and the base-date vs delta distinction are missing, though the clamping note and operand list cover the essentials.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps the three delta parameters (days, months, years) clearly via 'add days, months and/or years', but it never explains that year/month/day are the base date and that days/months/years are the offsets, nor that negative values subtract. The critical day-vs-days distinction is left implicit.

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 states a specific verb (add) and resource (a Jalali date) plus the operands (days, months, years), so an agent instantly knows this is date arithmetic rather than parsing, formatting, or diffing. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but its purpose is unambiguous.

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 routing to alternatives such as jalali_diff or format_jalali_date. The use case is only weakly implied by the verb 'add', leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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