price_input_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does describe observable behaviors of the generated code (digit grouping while typing, caret preservation, aria-live Persian words, raw value submission). However, it says nothing about permission/rate concerns or the exact format/content of what is returned as code, so behavioral coverage is helpful but partial.

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 dense sentences that front-load the deliverable and then enumerate its behaviors, with no filler. Slightly terse for the amount of behavior packed in, but every clause carries 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 no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a code-generating tool. It conveys the snippet's behavior well but omits what the response actually looks like (one file? multiple?) and the meaning of three of the four variants, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 enum parameter has four values. The description clarifies only 'core' (returns shared helpers); react/vue/vanilla are left to be inferred from their names. It adds meaning for one of four variants, which is partial compensation for the bare schema.

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 a specific deliverable: ready-to-use RTL-friendly price input code with defined behaviors (digit grouping, caret preservation, live Persian words, raw value submission). This is clearly distinct from number-formatting siblings like format_number_grouped or price_to_persian_words, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similar rtl_starter_snippet, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The description explains what the snippet does but never states when to reach for this tool versus the many adjacent helpers (format_number_grouped, price_to_persian_words, rtl_starter_snippet) that it appears to bundle. The only routing-style hint, 'variant core returns the shared helpers,' is more of a parameter note than genuine usage guidance.

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