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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated context: the tool does not call a model, so the agent itself must author the plan and teammate responses. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the model-role caveat and the skip condition. No filler, though the opening 'kuralları döndürür' phrasing adds slight ambiguity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers what matters for invocation: what it produces, that the agent writes the plan, and the skip condition. Only the relationship to sibling briefings is unaddressed.

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 100%, so params (dil, rol, format, onerge, seviye) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource (returns pre-match preparation rules) and characterizes the content (secret case plan per team, prep as the user's teammate), which distinguishes it from briefings like rakip_brifingi or poi_brifingi. It is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns rules or content, but the mechanism ('model çağırmaz; planı ve arkadaş cevaplarını sen yazarsın') clarifies.

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 an explicit when-not condition ('Kullanıcı hazırlanmak istemiyorsa atla') and an implicit when ('maç öncesi hazırlık'), but never names the sibling alternatives (rakip_brifingi, poi_brifingi) or the condition that would select one over another.

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