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.