Licensed exchange offices

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing the page cap (up to 50 offices), the `total`/`more` pagination signals, the exact returned fields, the error behavior for an unknown province, and the data limitation that office names are not published. That last point in particular prevents a wrong expectation about the result set.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: what it is, when to use it plus filtering behavior, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and the identification of the resource is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields and pagination semantics, and it flags the notable absence of office names. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by specifying that province/city values must be Persian names and that an invalid province raises an error enumerating valid values. It does not explain the `page` parameter's 200-page ceiling, which the schema covers anyway.

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 and resource ('List the licensed currency exchange offices') plus the authoritative source (Central Bank, Official Gazette, rrk.ir). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling law-retrieval tools.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use to see where licensed exchange offices are or to find one's address and phone.' It does not name when-not-to-use or an alternative, but the sibling set (law search tools) is unrelated enough that no routing conflict exists.

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