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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a response only occurs when talep_no and the opening phone are both correct together, and that others' requests cannot be viewed. This goes beyond the 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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main function, followed by a privacy warning and use case. There is no waste, though it could be marginally better structured with separators.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what is returned (status, offer count, price range), the privacy constraint, and the intended usage context. It lacks possible status values but is otherwise 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?

The schema covers both parameters fully with descriptions. The description adds the privacy constraint that both parameters must match and clarifies that talep_no comes from talep_olustur, providing context beyond the schema.

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 the tool 'returns the status of a previously opened request and the offer summary (how many offers, price range)' with the verb 'döner'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like talep_olustur by focusing on querying existing requests.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use it to check if your newly opened request has received offers from masters'. It implies using this after talep_olustur, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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