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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which matches a pure calculation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the server computes and returns line items and a total in kuruş, so the agent knows the response shape despite there being no output schema. It does not state that nothing is persisted or that all 28 fields are optional.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return convention. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthesis glosses on photo_count/document_pages duplicate schema titles.

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 a 28-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return convention, which is the most important gap. But it omits category-dependent requirements (e.g. cezaevi needing recipient_destination_id and recipient_father_name) and leaves most styling parameters opaque.

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?

With 28 parameters and only 32% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not. It restates photo_count and document_pages (already in the schema) and lumps the other ~26 fields into 'mektup alanları', leaving scent, ink_color, paper_color, envelope_color and the category enum's meaning 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 names the operation ('Fiyat teklifi') and the inputs that drive pricing (letter fields plus photo_count and document_pages), and it states the server performs the calculation. That distinguishes it from the create/get/update letter siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus create_letter (e.g. 'call before creating a letter to show the price'), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The pricing intent only implies the use case.

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