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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that only the public part of the note is returned (summary and core concepts) and the rest stays in the app — a scope limit the annotations cannot express.

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, zero waste, with the return value and its limitation front-loaded before the input hint. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: Markdown format plus the exact subset of content returned. Minor gaps remain around error handling for invalid or private addresses, but an agent has enough 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries an example url. The description only restates the same url-or-path semantics, adding little beyond pointing at klevero_konu_ara as the producer of valid values, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (döndürür) and resource (bir Klevero konu notu sayfasının Markdown sürümü), and scopes it precisely to the public portion of the note. It also ties itself to the sibling klevero_konu_ara as the source of its input, so the agent can separate it from the other tools 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?

The description tells the agent where the input comes from — the url in a klevero_konu_ara result or a /notlar/… path — which implies the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or stating what happens for a private/unknown note.

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