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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: Turkish diacritic- and case-insensitive matching plus relevance ordering (names containing the term rank first), which shapes how the agent should interpret results. It does not address zero-result behavior or result paging beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then matching semantics, then return shape, then the hand-off to the sibling. No filler and nothing repeated from the name.

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?

A simple read-only search over a bounded corpus with all three params documented and a declared output schema, so return-value detail is not the description's burden. Everything an agent needs to call this correctly and chain into klevero_not_getir is present.

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 would be 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining that matching is diacritic/case-insensitive and partial-in-name rather than exact, which directly informs how to phrase "sorgu". It says nothing about the seviye filter or sınır default that isn't already in the schema.

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 ("arar") and resource ("herkese açık konu notları") and narrows the corpus to LGS/TYT/AYT/YDT and grades 5–12, so the agent knows exactly what is indexed. It also names the sibling klevero_not_getir as the follow-up step, distinguishing this search tool from the note-fetch tool without opening either 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?

Clear routing: use this to find the topic, then hand the page address to klevero_not_getir for the note text — an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it differs from klevero_bilgi, so a small inference remains.

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