jalali_to_gregorian

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is nearly silent. It does not disclose the return shape (string vs. {year,month,day}), how invalid or out-of-range dates are handled, or leap-year behavior — all things an agent needs for a pure-function conversion.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise to the point of being slightly under-specified, but 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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description is too thin for a 3-required-parameter conversion tool. Return format, validation behavior, and month convention are all left unstated.

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 description says only 'a Jalali date', leaving all three parameters undocumented. It never clarifies month indexing (1-12 vs 0-11), accepted year range, or whether the values are Jalali rather than Gregorian, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Convert) and resource (Jalali/Persian date) with a clearly named target (Gregorian calendar). The purpose is unambiguous and the name makes the inverse of sibling gregorian_to_jalali obvious, though the description itself never acknowledges siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as gregorian_to_jalali or jalali_year_info. The agent must infer applicability purely from the name.

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