persian_relative_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the approximation conventions ('Months = 30 days, years = 365 days') and that 'now' defaults to the current time, which are genuine behavioral traits beyond the schema. However it says nothing about output format details, invalid-input handling, or the effect of persianDigits on the result.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first frames the output with examples, the second specifies input and a default, the third pins down the time approximations. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 low-complexity formatting function with no output schema, the description covers the core contract and the non-obvious month/year conventions. It remains incomplete on the persianDigits parameter and does not state the return shape beyond examples, so an agent still guesses on one input.

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 description must compensate for three bare parameters. It explains timestamp (ISO) and now (defaults to current time) well, but persianDigits is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 the resource (Persian relative time) and supplies concrete output examples ('۳ روز پیش', '۲ ساعت دیگر'), so an agent can immediately see what the tool produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings like jalali_age or jalali_diff, which also transform timestamps into human-readable temporal output.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples and the instruction to 'Pass an ISO timestamp', which tells the agent the input shape. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling (e.g. jalali_age, jalali_diff) is named as an alternative, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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