validate_jalali_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: "Never throws" tells the agent to inspect a result rather than catch an exception, and leap-aware range checking plus min/max/notFuture disclosure describe the validation surface. It does not describe the shape of the "readable reasons" result, so the error contract remains unclear.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's function, then the checks, then the non-throwing guarantee. No filler or restated 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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail for a 4-parameter nested-object tool. It hints at "readable reasons" but never describes the return payload (valid flag, reason list, message format), which is the key information an agent needs to act on a failed validation.

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 only 50% and `notFuture` has no schema description, yet the description supplies its meaning (a not-future-date check) along with min/max bounds and leap-aware range semantics. It does not clarify that min/max accept either {year,month,day} or '1405/07/24' text, but that is already covered by the 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?

States a specific verb (validation) and resource (Jalali date) and enumerates the checks performed (month/day ranges, min, max, notFuture), which separates it from siblings like parse_jalali_date or jalali_age. It never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so it stops 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?

"Form validation" implies the intake-validation use case but there is no when/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as parse_jalali_date (parsing) or format_jalali_date (output). The agent must infer from the sibling list when to reach for this validator.

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