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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious dual-mode return behavior and the fact that master counts ('usta sayıları') are included, which the annotations and schema do not convey. It does not describe output shape or ordering, but that is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 sentence with two clauses, front-loading the default behavior before the parameter-dependent one. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes adequately. Only secondary details such as result ordering or whether counts apply to all districts are unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the slug format with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what supplying 'il' actually changes in the result, which is meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 verb and resource ('İlleri listeler') and specifies the conditional second behavior ('il verilirse o ilin ilçelerini ve usta sayılarını döner'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces in each mode. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like usta_ara or kategoriler, which keeps it from 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?

The conditional clause tells the agent precisely when to omit the parameter (province list) versus when to supply it (districts plus master counts), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when another tool would be preferable.

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