parse_iran_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context: extraction is 'heuristic' (results may be approximate) and city extraction is limited to 'province capitals only' — a meaningful scope constraint. However, it says nothing about failure modes, partial results, or error handling when no address pattern matches.

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, zero waste, and the essential qualifiers ('heuristically', 'province capitals only') are placed inline where they matter. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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, and the description effectively enumerates the return fields, which is the key missing piece. It stops short of describing the output structure or behavior on unparseable input, but for a single-parameter read-only parser it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single 'text' parameter is undocumented structurally. The description implies the input is a Persian address string, which aligns with the parameter, but adds no format, length, or encoding detail (the 2000-char limit is invisible). Minimal compensation 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('Persian address string') and enumerates exactly which fields are pulled out (province, city, postal code, plaque/unit/floor). It is distinguishable from validation siblings like validate_postal_code or landline_province, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this parser versus the many sibling validators (validate_postal_code, landline_province, iran_provinces). The word 'heuristically' hints at approximate behavior but no condition or exclusion tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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