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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results arrive as title, summary and link, and full text requires following the link — that shapes how an agent should treat the output. It stops short of pagination or result-count behavior.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is searched and then what is returned. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 simple three-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, searched fields, and the shape of results, which is close to sufficient. The relationship between the free-text query 'sorgu' and the 'konu' parameter remains slightly ambiguous.

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 33%, with only 'sorgu' documented. The description compensates partially by framing 'konu' as a searched topic field, adding meaning beyond the bare string type, while 'adet' is left entirely unexplained in the description (though its default/max in the schema is fairly self-evident). This is partial compensation for a real coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Ortak Alan yazılarında ... Türkçe arama') and enumerates the searched fields (başlık, özet, konu, yazar adı), which makes the tool concretely identifiable. It does not name sibling tools like son_yazilar or yazi_ozeti, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 by the word 'arama' — an agent can infer this is the lookup tool when it has a query, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison against son_yazilar (recent articles) or yazi_ozeti (article summary). No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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