Month calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the response actually contains (month spans across three calendars, weekday of the first day, holidays, events), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say how many events may come back or whether the month is bounded by any cap.

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 no filler. The payload description comes first and the routing guidance follows, so the most important information is front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a description of the returned content, this is essentially complete. The only soft spots are the unaddressed sibling ti_holidays and the lack of any note on result volume, both minor for this complexity level.

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%, and the schema already states that year and month are Jalali and that omitting them yields the current month. The description's phrase "this month" merely echoes that default behavior and adds no new format, range, or validation detail. Baseline 3 is warranted since the schema carries this dimension.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Show one Jalali month") and then enumerates exactly what that entails: Gregorian and Hijri month spans, weekday of day 1, holidays, and all events. This is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from ti_today, ti_holidays, and ti_events without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger phrase ("Use for 'holidays this month'") and names an alternative with the condition that selects it ("For one day with descriptions use ti_events"). The guidance is clear but incomplete: the closely related sibling ti_holidays is never mentioned or excluded, so an agent still has to guess which of the two holiday-oriented tools to pick.

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