jalali_diff

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the result includes both a numeric day count and a Persian relative description, which is useful, but it says nothing about sign/ordering (what happens if 'to' precedes 'from'), error behavior, or calendar edge cases.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the output detail. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 two-argument nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the operation but omits ordering/negative-difference semantics, input format expectations (Jalali year/month/day as separate integers is only inferable from the schema), and any error conditions.

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% and both parameters are nested year/month/day objects with only numeric ranges. The description implies the two dates via 'between two Jalali dates' but never clarifies the from/to direction semantics, leaving a real gap the schema does not fill.

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 a specific computation (day difference) over a specific resource (Jalali dates) and even hints at the output shape (a Persian relative description). It is clearly distinct from sibling jalali_add or format_jalali_date, though it doesn't name those siblings 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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. For a simple, self-evident utility the usage is strongly implied by the purpose, but an agent gets no guidance on choosing it over jalali_add or format_jalali_date.

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