landline_province

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not deliver. It never states that the operation is a pure read-only lookup, nor does it define the accepted input shape (full number vs. bare area code, leading zero, Persian vs. ASCII digits) or what happens on an unrecognized prefix.

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 verb and resource, and the qualifying mechanism ('from its area code') lands immediately after. Zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should disclose the return value, yet it never says whether the province comes back as a Persian name, an English name, or a code, nor what an invalid or unassigned area code yields. For a lookup tool with a 0%-documented parameter, too much is 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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is named only 'value', which is uninformative. The description hints the input relates to an area code but leaves it genuinely ambiguous whether the caller should pass a full landline number or just the area code, an ambiguity the agent cannot resolve from the schema.

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 and resource ('Find the province of an Iranian landline number') plus the mechanism ('from its area code'), which is enough to separate it from neighbors like mobile_operator and bank_from_card. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the landline counterpart to mobile_operator; nothing in the description routes it there.

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