jalali_month_grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose output shape (weeks of 7 cells, day number, Gregorian date, Friday flag, null padding) and a default (weekStart = Saturday). It does not cover error/validation behavior for out-of-range year or month, which is a notable gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the artifact and audience, then the cell structure, then the default. No filler and no repetition of the name.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so well enough for a caller to consume the grid. It falls short only on parameter semantics for year/month and on error behavior, which no other structured field supplies.

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 must compensate. It documents the weekStart default ('Saturday'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about year/month ranges, calendar system, or the enum values' full set, leaving two required parameters essentially unspecified.

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 output artifact ('calendar grid for a Jalali month') plus its intended consumer ('for date-pickers'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like format_jalali_date, jalali_period_range or gregorian_to_jalali. The description of the returned structure (weeks of 7 cells) makes the resource 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?

The parenthetical 'for date-pickers' gives a clear use context, and 'Default week starts Saturday' signals the configurable case. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many jalali_* siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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