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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about in-menu searching and the sirala ordering semantics, but does not describe what the result looks like (per-platform price rows) or any coverage limits such as which platforms are included.

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 compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded, then the two optional modifiers. The telegraphic 'sirala=fiyat en ucuzdan, kazanc en çok tasarruftan' phrasing is dense but wastes no words; no filler or redundant restatement of 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?

For a five-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, in-menu search and ordering. The only material gap is that no output schema exists, so the shape of the returned menu (item rows with per-platform prices) is only hinted at by 'platform fiyatlarıyla'.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the full enum explanation for sirala. The description merely restates the sirala behavior ('fiyat en ucuzdan, kazanc en çok tasarruftan') and the ara behavior, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields, and never touches zincir, ilce or mahalle. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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: 'Bir restoranın menüsünü ... verir' (returns a restaurant's menu), scoped to platform prices, which separates it from price-comparison siblings like urun_karsilastir. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as yemek_ara or restoranlar, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name and scope alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required zincir/ilce pairing signals 'fetch the menu for a chain in a district', and 'ara ile menüde arar' tells the agent how to narrow within a menu. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over yemek_ara (item search) or urun_karsilastir (item comparison), and no stated prerequisites beyond what the schema implies.

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