parse_jalali_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say what the returned 'Jalali date' looks like (object, ISO string, epoch), nor how unparseable or ambiguous input is handled. It discloses accepted input shapes but nothing about output or failure behavior.

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 whose examples all earn their place by disambiguating input formats. Zero waste.

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 parser with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input well but leaves the return value unspecified, which is the main thing an agent needs beyond the schema. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the three examples show the accepted textual formats, including Persian digits and a Persian-month form, which meaningfully defines the 'text' parameter. It does not mention whether whitespace, time components, or other separators are tolerated.

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 states a specific verb (parse) and resource (text into a Jalali date), with three concrete input examples that make the direction of conversion unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as format_jalali_date to contrast the opposite direction, so it falls just 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 statement, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The examples imply the tool is for turning user-entered Jalali text into a structured date, so usage is inferable but never stated.

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