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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it lists 'active' categories and that the output is intended for finding the correct category ID. It does not go into details like ordering or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list tool with readOnlyHint=true, the behavior is simple and adequately disclosed. The openWorldHint is not contradicted.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, and includes concrete examples to illustrate the category types. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (active categories and their IDs), why to use it (to find correct ID before other actions), and provides examples. Sibling tools are sufficiently differentiated by the explicit mention of 'kategori id'sini bulmak'.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics by default. The description adds context about the return value (categories and IDs), which is relevant for using the tool. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 that the tool lists active service categories in BOZFIX with examples (elektrikçi, tesisatçı, klima, boya...), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like usta_ara or talep_olustur. The verb 'listeler' and the resource 'aktif hizmet kategorilerini' make the purpose immediately obvious.

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 explicitly says to use it 'before searching for a master or opening a request' to find the correct category ID, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but given no sibling tool serves the same purpose, this is acceptable. 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.