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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals critical behavioral traits: the short link does not open a request, the user must edit and approve the form, personal data must not be sent due to KVKK, and kategori_id must be real/active. It even states that it does not create fake/fabricated draft records, providing a strong safety profile.

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 dense yet well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, immediately explains the non-opening link behavior, then covers privacy and category constraints, and finally compares with the sibling tool. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff, and key terms are front-loaded.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies the return format (/t/{kod}), explains the user approval flow, states privacy constraints, and clarifies the relationship with talep_olustur. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining that kategori_id must come from the 'kategoriler' tool and should be left blank if uncertain, and explicitly warns against sending personal data fields (ad_soyad/telefon). This goes beyond the schema, but it does not add detail for every parameter (e.g., oncelik, ilce).

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 uses a specific verb 'hazırlar' and a specific resource 'talep TASLAĞI' (request draft), and clearly states it returns a short link (/t/{kod}). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'talep_olustur' by noting the link does not open the request, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it compares with 'talep_olustur' and notes this version is safer because human approval is required. It also tells the agent what not to send (ad_soyad/telefon) and when to leave kategori_id blank, offering clear context on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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