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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses relevant behavioral traits: it sorts by score and trust score, filters to approved masters only, and explicitly states that personal contact information is not returned—only a public profile link. This adds valuable context about the tool's output and privacy characteristics beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 exceptionally concise, comprising three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the main action, the filtering options, and the output privacy note. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, sorting, and output behavior (public profile link, no contact info). While it could elaborate on the full return structure, the note about profile links provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (ilce, limit, kategori_id), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description's mention of 'ilce ve kategori_id ile daraltılabilir' does not add meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: it lists approved masters in Antalya, sorted by score and trust score. The specific verb 'listeler' (lists) and the explicit scope (ONAYLI ustalar, Antalya) make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like kategoriler or fiyat_tahmini.

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 contextual usage guidance by mentioning the ability to narrow results using ilce and kategori_id, and it hints at the prerequisite of obtaining category IDs from the 'kategoriler' tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over others or when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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