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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it emphasizes honest reporting, output categories (iyi/zayıf/henüz yok), and the directive to still proceed with weak coverage while being transparent. This enriches the tool's expected behavior without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is concise yet information-dense: it states the core function in the first sentence, then provides imperative usage guidance in the second, and a conditional behavioral rule in the third. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it highly accessible for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return categories and usage intent. It doesn't cover error handling or invalid district cases, but the openWorldHint annotation and sibling context reduce the need for exhaustive detail. Overall, it's complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description only reiterates that the category is optional and the district is required, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it reports how many approved craftsmen serve in a given Antalya district, with optional category filtering, and classifies coverage as good/weak/none. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like usta_ara (which likely searches for individual craftsmen) and fiyat_tahmini (price estimation).

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 description gives explicit usage context: use it to set user expectations before making promises, and if coverage is weak, the agent may still open a request but must mention the limitation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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