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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states the price range is based on 'tamamlanmış GERÇEK işlere' (completed real jobs) and explicitly says that if there is insufficient data, it will state so clearly and not fabricate prices. This transparency about data limitations and honesty is a strong addition that helps the agent trust the output. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with a key behavioral guarantee. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or irrelevant content. It is concise yet informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It states the output is an estimated price range in TRY, but does not detail the exact format (e.g., min/max fields). Given the tool's simplicity and the strong behavioral notes, the description is mostly complete, but a little more specificity on the return structure would make it fully complete.

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%, with both 'kategori_id' and 'ilce' already described in the schema. The description mentions 'kategori/ilçe' but does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for missing schema info nor adds new parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('döner' meaning returns) and a clear resource: estimated price range for a category/district. It clearly conveys what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'usta_ara' (find craftsman) or 'talep_durum' (request status). Despite this, the uniqueness is implied by the tool's purpose.

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 usage context is implied from the name and description: it is used for price estimation based on completed jobs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The behavioral note that it uses 'tamamlanmış GERÇEK işlere' (completed real jobs) hints at a specific data source but does not provide decision rules.

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