format_hijri

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It only states the output format with an example but does not disclose error handling, timezone sensitivity, input validation, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 with an example, containing zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and an example. However, it lacks details about parameter interactions, error scenarios, or the behavior for invalid dates, which feels incomplete for production use.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (date, locale, numerals) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by showing an example output format, but does not elaborate on how locale or numerals affect the result. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool converts a Gregorian date to a Hijri date string with Arabic month names and era, and provides an illustrative example. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'to_hijri', so the purpose is clear but differentiation is missing.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'to_hijri' or other formatting tools. It implies usage for Hijri conversion with Arabic month names but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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