persian_text_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload (the list of counts plus reading time) and the fact that reading time rests on an adjustable 180 wpm assumption, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about input size limits, mixed-script handling, or accuracy caveats beyond that.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter nuance relegated to the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of enumerating outputs and explaining the configurable parameter, which covers what an agent needs to call it. It omits input size constraints and any notes on how mixed Persian/Latin text affects the counts.

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. It fully documents wordsPerMinute as an adjustable assumption with a default of 180 — information absent from the schema, which specifies only numeric bounds. The remaining parameter, text, is self-evident from the purpose statement, so only a minor gap remains.

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 exact resource (Persian/mixed text) and enumerates the specific metrics returned (character, letter, digit, ZWNJ, word, sentence, paragraph counts, reading time), so an agent knows precisely what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from measurement-adjacent siblings such as truncate_persian_text or normalize_persian_text, which keeps it 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is that it is an analysis/counting operation, which the agent must infer from the metric list.

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