mobile_operator

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. It does not state the accepted input formats (local 09xx vs +989xx), what happens with invalid or non-Iranian numbers, or whether the result is an operator name versus a code — all things an agent would need to call it safely.

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 tight sentence with the verb, resource, and enumerated outputs front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core intent but omits the input format and the return shape. An agent can guess, but the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter ('value') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as an Iranian mobile number, which adds real meaning over the bare 'value' key, but gives no format, prefix, or length constraints.

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 gives a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('mobile operator') and even enumerates the possible outputs (MCI/Irancell/Rightel) on an Iranian mobile number. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling normalize_mobile, which also operates on mobile numbers.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the tool for operator lookup rather than mobile normalization, which is the adjacent sibling.

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