cyrillic_numerals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and even the apparent 'writes a number' phrase is not a contradiction (it means emitting a numeral, not persisting). The description adds genuine behavioral context (the titlo-scan mode, the 11–19 units-first rule), but says nothing about error handling or ambiguous input.

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 sentences with examples that earn their place by anchoring the numeral formats. Front-loaded with the domain context, though it is dense and the mode list could be split more cleanly.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough domain context (notation examples, the three operating modes) to invoke it correctly. The only real gap is how the tool disambiguates modes from a single free-form `value`.

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 100% and the schema's own description already explains that `value` may be letters, a number, or a transcription. The description adds example formats and the 11–19 ordering note, which helps interpret inputs, but does not fully override the baseline since the schema does most of the work.

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 second sentence states three specific verbs (reads, writes, finds) applied to a named resource (Church Slavonic numerals / numerals marked with a titlo). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like normalize_date or convert_calendar, which handle dates rather than numeral systems.

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 enumerates three modes but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or how the agent signals which mode it wants. Usage is implied by the input format rather than stated, so guidance is only minimal.

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