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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns specific fields and mentions a flat 5-point cost per successful run, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is composed of two short, front-loaded sentences that deliver the key operation, input format, return fields, and cost without any filler. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read operation with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition is complete. It names the returned fields, clarifies the input, and mentions the cost, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it 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 100%, and the single parameter 'merchant' is fully documented as 'Merchant slug or store URL. e.g. efeturk'. The description repeats this without adding new syntax, constraints, or format details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get a Hepsiburada merchant (store)'), specifies the input format (slug or store URL), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_hepsiburada_merchants_products, which serve a different purpose.

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 implies usage by stating it accepts a slug or store URL, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_hepsiburada_merchants_products or run_hepsiburada_products_sellers. No exclusions or contextual routing are provided, leaving usage to inference.

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