price_to_persian_words

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral quirk: toman may carry one decimal digit where tenths represent rials. It says nothing about rounding of longer decimals, negative or zero handling, maximum magnitude, or error 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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and an inline example doing the work of a mini spec. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter pure formatter with no output schema, the example output plus the decimal rule cover the essentials. Gaps remain: behavior for more than one decimal digit, the rial unit path, and edge cases like zero or negative amounts.

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 partially does: the example shows the amount format and a valid unit value, and the decimal/rial rule clarifies amount semantics for fractional toman, but it never explains the rial option, string input expectations, or limits.

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 the specific transformation (amount -> Persian words with a currency unit) and anchors it with a concrete input/output example. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling number_to_persian_words via the 'with unit' framing and the toman example, though it never names that sibling 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 explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as number_to_persian_words or convert_rial_toman. The currency example implies the domain but leaves the agent to infer 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.