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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — it depends on the user having shared a location — but says nothing about what happens when the coordinates fall outside the service area or what the call returns on failure.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the input-to-output mapping with no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than cryptic, though the parenthetical precondition could have been phrased more crisply.

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-parameter, non-destructive lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The gap is behavioral edge cases: coordinates outside coverage, and whether the result is a single district/neighborhood pair or a list, are left unaddressed.

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 both parameters carry their own examples in decimal degrees. The description merely names the same two inputs without adding format, range, or precision guidance, so the schema is doing all the work — the baseline 3.

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 (bulur/find) and specific resources (ilçe ve mahalle) derived from a specific input (enlem/boylam), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this reverse-geocoding tool from the sibling 'ilceler' or explain how they differ, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(kullanıcı konumunu paylaştıysa)' implies a precondition — the user must have shared their location — which is real usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'ilceler' or the other location-adjacent siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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