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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by stating the search is Turkish and case-insensitive, that it does not consume quota, and what fields come back (path, name, description, parameters, paid/free). It stops short of describing result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior, so it is strong but not 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields, the quota note, and the next-step call. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is searched, language and case behavior, what is returned, cost in quota, and the follow-up invocation path. No material gap remains.

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 single parameter is documented as 'Aranacak kelimeler', so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that multi-word Turkish phrases with special characters ('şarj istasyonu', 'resmi gazete', 'posta kodu') are valid and matched case-insensitively, which meaningfully constrains how the parameter should be filled.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Tüm API uçlarında arama') and immediately separates itself from the sibling uc_cagir, which is the tool that actually invokes an endpoint. An agent can tell from the first sentence that this is a discovery/search tool, not an execution 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 explicitly routes the agent: search here, then call the discovered endpoint with uc_cagir, which is the exact alternative workflow a searcher needs. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or note about preferring a direct sibling tool when the endpoint is already known, which keeps it from a 5.

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