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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's `GET /v1/hesapla/kredi` line is consistent with that read-only profile. It adds one piece of behavioral context beyond the annotations — the paid-tier requirement — but says nothing about rounding conventions, default tax rates, error behavior, or how the response is shaped.

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?

The definition is short and front-loads the outcome before the endpoint and prerequisite. The only waste is that the opening clause duplicates the title word for word instead of using that space for parameter or default-rate detail.

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 7-parameter financial calculator with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is thin — it never explains loan-type defaults, KKDF/BSMV rate semantics, or how vade/faiz units interact. An agent can guess the tool's purpose but not call it confidently without reading the raw schema.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never mentions tur (loan type categories), kkdf, bsmv, or the plan flag that controls whether the payment table is included, leaving more than half the inputs with no explanatory text anywhere.

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+resource in context (a loan payment plan calculation) and enumerates the outputs it computes: monthly installment, total interest, KKDF, BSMV, and annual cost. This is enough to separate it from siblings like hesapla_mevduat (deposit) and hesapla_kidem (severance), although the first clause is a verbatim repeat of the title.

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 domain wording; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over hesapla_mevduat or hesapla_kidem, and no exclusions. The one genuine guidance element is 'Ücretli paket gerekir' (a paid package is required), which tells the agent about an access prerequisite but not about selection between tools.

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