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

Richly discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: the request is created but not sent to artisans until user approves via a link, non-approval means no artisan sees it, and BOZFIX charges no fee. This is high-value information that annotations do not convey.

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?

Description is somewhat long but front-loaded with purpose and each sentence carries important operational or safety detail. The warning and approval explanation are essential, so the length is justified, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 complexity, lack of output schema, and potential for misuse, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the full approval workflow, required fields, what the response should contain (onay linki), and the no-fee policy, enabling correct invocation and follow-up.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces required parameters and mentions the onay_linki output, but does not add new semantic detail to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a service request ('hizmet talebi açar') on the user's behalf in BOZFIX. It also distinguishes the tool by describing the approval workflow and mentioning the onay linki, setting it apart from siblings like talep_taslak_olustur.

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?

Provides clear usage context: required fields, the need to pass the approval link to the user, and the consequence of non-approval. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling talep_taslak_olustur, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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