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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what results contain (puan, yorum sayısı, onay, 'şu an ulaşılabilir') and a critical constraint that no phone number is returned. That phone restriction plus the url-redirect instruction materially shape agent behavior. It stops short of explaining pagination or result-count limits despite a sayfa parameter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then the most consequential constraint (no phone / redirect to url). No redundant phrasing and nothing buried.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the returned fields and warning that contact details are withheld. The remaining gap is pagination and result-ordering behavior for the sayfa parameter, which an agent might need when results are large.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including examples. The description restates the main facets (kategori, il, ilçe) and echoes filter semantics via 'onay' and 'şu an ulaşılabilir', but adds no format, combination, or ranking semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 (arar) and resource (usta ve firmaları) plus the facets it searches by (kategori, il, ilçe, filtreler), which clearly separates it from usta_detay, kategoriler and konumlar without naming them. It is unambiguous about being a search/list operation rather than a detail or lookup tool.

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?

It implies when to use it (searching by location/category) and gives a concrete post-search instruction — 'Telefon verilmez; kullanıcıyı sonucun url adresine yönlendirin' — which is genuinely actionable. However, it never states when to prefer usta_detay for details or kategoriler/konumlar for resolving facets, so alternatives are left to inference.

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