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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the paid-plan prerequisite, the underlying GET endpoint, and the fact that the result covers gross interest, withholding, and net return — meaningful because no output schema exists.

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 short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the endpoint path and paid-plan note each carry information. It is efficiently sized, though the repetition of the title phrasing means the first line adds little beyond the title field.

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 five-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description does state what the result contains and that payment is required, which covers the essentials. It still leaves the currency dimension (tl/doviz) and the maturity parameter unexplained, so an agent must infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 only 40%, so the description carries extra burden. It does clarify that 'faiz' is a gross rate and that 'stopaj' is withholding, but it says nothing about 'tutar', 'para' (tl vs doviz), or the 'gun' maturity default, leaving half the parameters explained only by terse schema text or not at all.

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 concrete calculation and its outputs: 'Vadeli mevduat getirisi: brüt faiz, stopaj, net getiri', which tells an agent this computes term-deposit yield with gross interest, withholding, and net return. It is clearly distinct from siblings like hesapla_kredi or hesapla_kidem by domain, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 choose this over hesapla_kredi or hesapla_kidem. The one genuine guideline present is the prerequisite 'Ücretli paket gerekir' (a paid plan is required), which is useful but is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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