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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: it states that only first-party content is provided ('Yalnız birinci taraf içerik sunulur'). The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description enhances transparency by specifying the content scope.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary action and its prerequisite, while the second adds an important constraint. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 required parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage context (post-search), and a key constraint (first-party only). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 describes the 'id' parameter as the article ID from search results (100% coverage). The tool description essentially repeats this information without providing additional meaning or context for the parameter. As per rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 purpose: it retrieves the full text of a MetalTakip article using an ID from a previous search result. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it provides first-party content only, contrasting with search which returns IDs and other tools like gunluk_ozet and turev_gostergeler which serve different functions.

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 explicitly indicates that the tool should be used with an ID obtained from the search tool ('search sonucundaki id ile'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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