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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's added value is the response shape it discloses: a short answer plus the main figure, the reference period, the source (TÜİK, TCMB and other official bodies) and a link. It also discloses the conditional behavior that a province name in the query additionally yields that province's indicators. It does not say what happens when no matching data is found.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads what is searched and its coverage, the second states what is returned and the province rule. The topic list is long but every item genuinely expands the searchable scope rather than repeating the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so (short answer, main figure, period, source, link), and annotations already cover the safety profile. The only gap is the undocumented "adet" result-count control, which is minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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 50%: "soru" is documented with examples and the description adds real meaning for it (province names trigger provincial indicators). The "adet" parameter (integer, 1–8, default 3) is undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent cannot tell that it controls how many results come back.

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 uses a specific verb ("arar") and a specific resource ("Ortak Veri'de Türkiye istatistiği") and enumerates the covered domains (enflasyon, asgari ücret, nüfus, altın, dolar, 81 il), so an agent can tell it is a free-text statistics lookup. It never names or distinguishes itself from the plausible siblings veri_getir, veri_seri or doviz_ve_gostergeler, whose subject matter (döviz, göstergeler) visibly overlaps with the listed topics.

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: the schema shows question-style queries ("2025 enflasyonu", "İzmir nüfusu") and the description notes that including a province name also returns provincial indicators. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over veri_getir, veri_seri or doviz_ve_gostergeler, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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