calculate_silver_nisab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key behavioral detail: the threshold is specifically 595 grams of silver multiplied by the given price. It does not disclose return format, rounding behavior, or currency handling, but the core calculation is transparent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and calculation basis. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple calculation tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the calculation formula and the required input. The main gap is the lack of return format specification, but this is minor for such a straightforward computation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that silver_price_per_gram is the price of a single gram of silver ('at the given price') and that 595 grams are used. However, the optional 'currency' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its role ambiguous despite having a default.

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 explicitly states 'Return the Zakat Nisab threshold' which clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the basis ('595 grams of silver') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_gold_nisab.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for calculating the silver-based nisab threshold using a given silver price. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as directing users to calculate_gold_nisab for gold-based nisab, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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