normalize_persian_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the three transformations it applies, which is meaningful behavioral content. However, it says nothing about how ambiguous cases are treated (ZWNJ/zero-width non-joiner handling, which Arabic variants map to which Persian letters), whether the operation is idempotent, or what the returned value looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves the usage and behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 one-parameter string-to-string transformation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core 'what' adequately. It falls short on the 'when' relative to its many siblings and on any statement of the return value, which is the only thing an agent still has to guess.

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 'text' parameter has no description in the schema. The description implies the input is Persian/Arabic text to be normalized, which is trivially inferable from the tool name, but it adds no detail about expected encoding, length, or whether mixed scripts are accepted.

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 names a specific verb (normalize) and enumerates three concrete transformations: Arabic letter variant mapping to Persian, spacing cleanup, and digit conversion to Persian. That is unambiguous about what the tool does. It loses a point because it never distinguishes itself from siblings like sanitize_persian_text or slugify_persian, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus sanitize_persian_text, slugify_persian, or to_persian_digits. Given that at least three siblings operate on Persian text and one overlaps on digit conversion, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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