number_to_persian_words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a 'non-negative integer' constraint and the output language, but the schema explicitly allows negative values (minimum -9007199254740991), so the stated constraint conflicts with the actual input domain. No edge-case, error, or output-format behavior is disclosed.

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 that front-loads the operation and appends a brief use-case hint. Nothing is padded, though the example clause adds little beyond flavor.

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 converter with no output schema, the description covers the basics, but the negative-number mismatch with the schema is a real correctness gap and there is no guidance on which sibling converter to use. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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" with no description. The description adds the intended type (integer) but contradicts the schema's actual range by claiming non-negativity, so it does not reliably 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+resource: converting an integer into Persian words, with a concrete example use case (invoices). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling price_to_persian_words, which targets the same invoice domain.

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?

"e.g. for invoices" implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and never mentions the obvious alternative price_to_persian_words. The guidance is only implied, leaving the agent to infer which converter to pick.

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