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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it does not call a model, the agent must write the POI or response itself, and reply speeches have no POI. That is meaningful added transparency, though it does not cover auth or rate-limit 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mode semantics, a critical behavioral note, and a constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema description coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides the necessary operational context: what the tool returns, how the two yon modes behave, that the model is not called, and where POI is absent. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds nuance for yon by explaining the POI direction in context and notes the reply-speech exclusion. It does not add much for the other seven parameters, but the schema does that work.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it returns point-of-information (POI) rules. The two yon modes further clarify what the tool covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as rakip_brifingi or hazirlik_brifingi, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 explains the two usage modes for yon and adds an explicit exclusion: 'Cevap konuşmalarında POI yoktur' (there is no POI in reply speeches). It does not name alternative sibling tools or say when to choose this over them, so it is clear context but short of full alternative guidance.

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