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

Annotations only say read-only/idempotent; the description goes far beyond by defining what the returned price actually means — single-item price with any public basket campaign already deducted, delivery included when known, otherwise flagged as 'teslimat hariç'. That pricing semantics is essential to interpreting results and is nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Purpose and output shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by pricing caveats and then sibling routing — a sensible order. It is dense and somewhat long, but essentially every clause carries non-obvious information; only minor tightening would help.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what comes back (per-platform prices, cheapest, delivery annotation) and how pricing is computed. It does not cover edge cases such as no results or the adet cap of 20, but those are minor against the richness delivered.

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%, so all five parameters (yemek, ilce, mahalle, adet, sirala) are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource in the very first clause ('Bir yemeği ... ilçede/mahallede arar') and immediately states the output shape: per-platform price plus the cheapest option. It also names the sibling tools it is not (urun_karsilastir, sepet_karsilastir), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with the condition that selects them: urun_karsilastir when the caller needs product and delivery broken out, sepet_karsilastir for multiple quantities or multiple products. It even explains the campaign arithmetic difference (applied once per basket, not quantity × card price), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use distinction an agent needs.

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