Amount in words (Indian)

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds the genuinely important behavioral fact that output follows the Indian lakh/crore grouping rather than the Western thousands grouping. It does not disclose how fractional amounts or paise are rendered, which is the main remaining behavioral 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?

One sentence with zero filler; the core operation comes first and the disambiguating detail (Indian numbering, lakh/crore) follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the name or title without adding information.

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?

The tool is simple (one numeric input, no output schema), yet the description never states what the return value looks like — a plain string, capitalization, whether "Rupees"/"Paise" is appended. For a formatting/conversion tool whose entire value is output shape, that is a meaningful omission.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description has to compensate. Calling it a "rupee amount" does establish the unit and implicitly the currency, but it says nothing about decimal/paise handling, rounding, or the upper bound implied by the schema's minimum:0 constraint.

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 (Convert), a specific resource (a rupee amount to words), and the exact output convention (Indian numbering system with lakh/crore). The sibling list contains no other numeric-formatting tool, so the boundary is unambiguous from the description alone.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ("as used on invoices and cheques") which tells the agent when this formatting is appropriate, and the rupee framing implicitly scopes out other currencies. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating what to do for non-INR or non-numeric input, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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