jalali_period_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the meaningful output shape (start and end, in both Jalali and Gregorian) plus the non-obvious week convention (Saturday-Friday). It stops short of stating that this is a pure computation with no side effects or how invalid dates are handled, which leaves a small gap for an unannotated 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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the returned value and followed by the routing advice. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape and period semantics reasonably well, but it leaves the input-date calendar ambiguous and says nothing about behavior on malformed dates. For a nested-object, zero-coverage schema, more specificity is needed.

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 the date parameter is a nested object, so the description must compensate. It usefully expands the period enum (week defined as Saturday-Friday, quarter as season), but it never clarifies whether the input date is Jalali or Gregorian, which is the single most important semantic for this tool. Partial compensation only.

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 precise verb and resource ('Start/end ... of the Jalali day, week, month, quarter or year containing a date') and names the output calendars (Jalali and Gregorian). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as jalali_month_grid, jalali_year_info, and format_jalali_date, which do not return period boundaries.

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?

It gives an explicit usage directive ('Use for reports and finance periods instead of Gregorian date libraries'), which names the alternative approach to avoid. It does not, however, contrast against sibling tools that also deal with Jalali dates, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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