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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are opaque identifiers that must be resolved with fetch, and behavior degrades to a generic report when no district is supplied. It does not mention result counts, ranking, or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact: what it searches, how results are consumed, and the fallback. No filler or restated 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 correctly fills the gap by explaining that results are IDs resolved via fetch and what happens without a district. Sufficient to call the tool correctly, with only sibling routing left unspecified.

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 already documents the single query parameter, but the description adds the hard requirement that a district name be present and shows the accepted ordering of terms, which is meaning the schema only implies. That is a real increment over the structured field.

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 concrete verb and resource: free-text search for food prices, with the constraint that the query must contain a district name. That scope distinguishes it from fetch/ilceler/konumdan_ilce, but it never contrasts itself with the close sibling yemek_ara, so an agent must guess which search path to take.

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?

Gives the required query shape with two literal examples and explains the follow-up step (results are IDs opened via fetch) plus the no-district fallback to a general cheapness report. Explicit and actionable, though it does not say when to prefer this over yemek_ara or urun_karsilastir.

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