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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It nonetheless contributes real information beyond them: the computed figure bundles delivery fee when known, public campaign discounts, and minimum-basket rules, and the parenthetical 'teslimat ücreti biliniyorsa' warns that results may be partial. It does not disclose what the response looks like or how platforms are ranked.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core object (the per-platform payable total) is front-loaded. The stacked parentheticals make it harder to parse than necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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 four fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the main missing piece is what the tool returns — since there is no output schema, an agent cannot know whether it gets per-platform totals, a ranked list, or a savings delta, and the description does not fill that gap. It also doesn't say how unknown delivery fees affect the comparison.

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 explains zincir, ilce, mahalle, and the nested urun/adet fields with concrete examples. The description only adds the constraint that all urunler must come from the same restaurant, which is useful but largely a restatement of what the per-parameter text implies. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 pair ('sepetin ... her platformda ödenecek tutarı') and scopes it to a multi-item basket from a single restaurant, which implicitly separates it from the single-item sibling urun_karsilastir. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: 'birden çok ürünlük sepet' hints that this is the multi-item counterpart to a single-product comparison, and 'aynı restorandan' hints at the input constraint. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to hangi_uygulama_ucuz or urun_karsilastir for the cases this tool does not cover.

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