Pınar Eldem Hukuk & Danışmanlık

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating lookup against a closed, fixed source. The description adds the content inventory (what categories of information are returned), but says nothing about caching, freshness, or response format beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the subject and then lists its contents. No redundant or filler text.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description's enumeration of returned information categories carries the burden and does so adequately. It could be slightly stronger by noting the source is static/firm-provided, but 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific resource (information about the Pınar Eldem Hukuk & Danışmanlık firm) and enumerates the exact content domains it covers (faaliyet alanları, hizmetler, görüşme biçimleri, iletişim kanalları). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (draft request, checklist, pre-assessment), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs firm/contact details rather than a substantive legal action. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus the siblings or of any preconditions, so guidance is left to inference.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a strong no-side-effect guarantee ('Hiçbir şey göndermez') plus a data-handling constraint ('Hassas kişisel veri ... eklemeyin') and the output artifacts produced. It does not, however, specify the mailto format or the draft's structure, so it adds real value without being exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, each doing distinct work: what is produced, what must not happen (sending), and a privacy constraint. The no-send statement is slightly redundant against readOnlyHint, but the phrasing is front-loaded and waste-free.

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 5-parameter, 0-required tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the artifacts returned (draft + mailto link) and the safety profile. The remaining gap is that half the optional inputs (ad, proje, tercih) are never contextualized, which an agent may need to fill them sensibly.

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 only 40%: konu and ozet carry descriptions, while ad, proje and tercih (beyond its self-evident enum) are undocumented. The description contributes no parameter-level semantics at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap as the low-coverage rule requires.

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?

Names a specific verb and artifact set (e-posta taslağı ve mailto bağlantısı) for a clearly delimited resource — a consultation-request draft. It is plainly distinct from the sibling read/assessment tools (buro_bilgisi, kontrol_listesi_getir, on_degerlendirme_yap) without needing their schemas.

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?

States the triggering condition ('Kullanıcı büroya danışmak istediğinde') and the required follow-through workflow ('taslağı kullanıcıya gösterin, kullanıcı kendi e-posta uygulamasından gönderir'). No sibling is named as an explicit alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the exact shape of the returned payload (questions, legal bases, recommendations, per-question codebase checkpoints) and the sequencing constraint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource description and closing with the usage instruction. The first sentence is long due to the enumeration of return contents, but every listed item carries information.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the checklist's components. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to complete, though it says nothing about format or size of the returned list.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('döndürür') and a concrete resource ('Yayına almadan önce 12 soru' hukuki ön kontrol listesi), and enumerates its contents. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like buro_bilgisi or danisma_talebi_taslagi, though it never names an alternative 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?

Provides an explicit invocation condition: 'Kullanıcının projesini incelemeden önce çağırın' (call before examining the user's project), which positions it ahead of on_degerlendirme_yap. It gives no when-not guidance or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating the email is NOT sent and the draft must be shown to the user. This is non-obvious, safety-relevant behavior that goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover error cases or link expiry, so not a 5.

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 sentences, tightly packed with no filler, and the critical 'email is not sent' instruction is placed at the end where it is read as an action item. The first sentence is long but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates what is returned (risk level, compliance score, priority gaps, filled test link, email draft) plus the no-send behavior. That covers the essentials for calling and handling the result; minor gaps remain on the link's nature and error conditions.

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 documents proje, yanit and yanitlar in detail. The description adds only the implicit context that inputs are the 12 answers; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and outputs: computes risk level, compliance score and priority gaps from the 12 answers, then returns a test link and an email draft. Very clear what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like danisma_talebi_taslagi or kontrol_listesi_getir, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (run after the 12 questions are answered via kontrol_listesi_getir), and it gives one explicit handling instruction ('E-posta gönderilmez; taslağı kullanıcıya gösterin'). But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from the sibling tools.

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