dv_parse_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the parser is Persian-language and domain-scoped to amounts/categories/amenities — but says nothing about determinism, failure modes, or what happens with text it cannot resolve.

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 short sentences with the extraction targets front-loaded; no filler. However, "Review assumptions and unresolved text" is cryptic and reads like an instruction to the agent rather than a description of the tool, slightly muddling an otherwise tight statement.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. But for a parsing tool embedded in a large search family, the description omits the crucial relationship to dv_search and whether its output is meant to be fed forward, which is the main thing an agent needs to place this tool correctly.

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 "text" parameter, so the schema contributes only type and length bounds. The description hints the content is Persian and parseable into amounts/categories/amenities, but never states that "text" is the free-text query to be parsed or its expected form, leaving the one required parameter under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ("Parse") and enumerates exactly what is extracted: Persian amounts, category intent, and required/preferred amenities. That is far more informative than a tautology, though it never names the downstream sibling (dv_search) that consumes the parsed result, so differentiation from siblings is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never states that this is a pre-processing step feeding dv_search, nor what input should trigger it, so an agent must guess its place in the workflow.

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