jalali_persian

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool is a convenience wrapper, but it does not state read-only behavior, output format, date handling rules, error cases, or any limitations. For a tool with seven operations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 operation list front-loaded and the alternative routing stated immediately. No wasted words or redundant restatement 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?

This is a multi-operation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no return-value information, no operation-to-parameter mapping, and no date semantics. The schema's generic property descriptions are not enough for an agent to confidently determine what each operation expects or returns.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description's operation list loosely aligns with the enum values but adds no extra meaning about which parameters are required per operation or how the parameters combine.

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 a specific resource (Persian/Jalali calendar) and enumerates distinct operations: converting dates, looking up events, getting month overviews, and calculating days until Jalali dates. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the universal 'calendar' sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for Jalali-specific functionality and explicitly directs universal calendar operations to the 'calendar' tool instead. However, it does not address other potentially overlapping siblings like 'holidays' or 'convert_time', leaving some edge-case routing ambiguous.

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