Kahve Tabela — Türkiye heritage, food & coast

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

The description only says 'Fetch' without disclosing side effects, error behavior, or confirmation that it is read-only. Since there are no annotations, the description bears the burden but does not provide this context.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks important context such as the meaning of the lang parameter or expected output. Given the simplicity of the operation, the missing parameter explanation leaves gaps for correct usage.

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 slug parameter is implicitly defined by 'by slug', but the lang parameter is not mentioned at all. The enum values (tr/en) are present in the schema but the description does not clarify their purpose or effect on the result.

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 fetches a single dish by slug, using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from search_dishes by indicating it fetches one specific dish rather than searching.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_dishes. The description does not mention contexts where fetching by slug is preferred or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Fetch' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention response format, error behavior (e.g., missing slug), or any side effects. The minimal description leaves the agent to assume typical GET semantics without explicit confirmation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key parameter. However, it is so terse that it omits essential details (like the lang parameter), which slightly reduces its value, though this is more a completeness issue than conciseness.

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 has two parameters (slug and lang) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the language parameter, the nature of a valid slug, or any expectations about the returned entry. For an agent to call this correctly, it needs more context on parameter semantics and output.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what a 'slug' is (format, source, or uniqueness), nor does it mention the 'lang' parameter at all. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action (fetch), the resource (one Mavi Koy coastal atlas entry), and the lookup key (by slug). It differentiates from siblings like search_mavi_koy (which searches) and get_place (generic place), making the tool's specific scope unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_place or search_mavi_koy. It does not mention that a slug is required to fetch a specific entry, nor does it explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over searching.

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

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavior beyond 'render' is undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant text. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, the description provides some context (supported public path, compact markdown) but lacks details about the path format and expected output. Given no output schema, more specificity would be beneficial.

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 only parameter 'path' is a string with no description. The description references 'path' but does not clarify whether it is a URL, file path, or API endpoint, leaving its semantics ambiguous.

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 verb 'render' and the resource 'path' but leaves 'Kahve Tabela' and 'supported public path' vague. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like get_dish or get_place.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or when other tools would be more appropriate.

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

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed. There are no annotations, and the description does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral aspects.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks structured detail or additional context that could make it more informative while remaining concise.

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?

The description provides only the bare minimum. It does not mention what the response contains, error conditions, or any relevant context for when this tool should be invoked, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 lists parameters id (string) and lang (enum tr,en) with no descriptions. The description does not explain what id refers to or how lang affects the response, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Kahve Tabela public heritage place' with an explicit 'by id' scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_places or get_mavi_koy_place, but the 'by id' phrase implies a single-item lookup.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where get_place is preferable to search_places or other sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations and no additional behavior details, the description does not disclose how proximity is determined, coordinate system, sort order, error behavior, or consequences of the language/audio parameters.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise and 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?

The description lacks essential context such as search radius, result limits, default language/audio behavior, and expected output structure, making it incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no output schema.

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 has no parameter descriptions, and the description only hints at lat/lon via 'coordinate'. It does not explain lang, audio, or limit semantics, despite these parameters being present.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('nearby public heritage places'), and the input ('a coordinate'), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_places or get_place.

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 implies coordinate-based proximity search but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_places or get_place, nor does it mention exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for conveying behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or requires any permissions, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it omits essential information. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' but fails to provide adequate context, making the brevity a drawback rather than an asset.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks any details about expected outputs, parameter usage, or the nature of the records. With no output schema and no explanation of the tool's purpose beyond a vague phrase, it is insufficient for an agent to operate 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 schema provides no descriptions for the six parameters (q, city, lang, limit, giOnly, category). The description does not explain any of them, leaving the agent without clues on how to fill them correctly.

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 a search action on 'public regional-food records' but does not clarify what 'Yöre Sofrası' refers to or what specific records are being searched. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_places' or 'search_mavi_koy'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or conditions that would warrant invoking this tool.

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

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

With no annotations and no description, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque. It is unclear whether this is a read-only search operation, whether it has side effects, or what the output format is. No safety information is disclosed.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices all informative value. It does not explain the parameters, the search scope, or any filtering logic, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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?

The tool is severely under-described. With no parameter explanations, no usage context, and no output schema, an agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool or interpret its results. It is far from 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?

All five parameters (q, lang, limit, region, category) are listed in the schema but none are described. The schema provides types and constraints but gives no semantic meaning, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid query.

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 it searches 'Mavi Koy public coastal atlas entries' but does not clarify what these entries are or how they differ from the sibling search tools like search_places and search_dishes. The purpose is too vague to be actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_places, search_dishes). The description lacks any context about the intended use case or selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, returns matching records, or has any pagination or ordering behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise, though it could productively use additional space to clarify key parameters or behavior.

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?

The entry is minimal: there is no output schema, no parameter details, and no description of filtering semantics. Given that all parameters are optional and there are multiple sibling tools, an agent is left with limited context to invoke this 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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters, and the tool description does not explain q, city, category, district, lang, or limit. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, there is no guidance on how they combine or what values are expected.

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 action ('Search') and the target ('public heritage places'), and the tool name matches. However, 'Kahve Tabela' is not explained, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like search_mavi_koy or search_dishes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as nearby_places, get_place, or search_mavi_koy. It lacks any mention of preferred use cases, query patterns, or when the structured filters are appropriate.

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