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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered and the 'GET /v1/konumlar/bul' line adds nothing new. The only extra fact is 'Her pakette' (available on all plans), which is minor; nothing explains how ambiguity is resolved when several params are supplied, what happens with zero params, or what the result contains.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first clause simply repeats the title verbatim and the endpoint path is redundant with the readOnly annotation. The final fragment 'Her pakette' is terse to the point of being cryptic without surrounding context.

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 five optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the agent needs to know which parameter combinations are valid and what is returned when nothing matches. The description supplies none of this, so it is thin for a multi-mode resolver with sibling overlap.

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 100% and every one of the five parameters carries its own Turkish description with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no precedence rules (e.g. konum vs il+ilce vs enlem/boylam) or formatting detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Konum çöz') and enumerates three input modes (slug, il/ilçe, en yakın koordinat), so the operation is identifiable. However, it is nearly a verbatim echo of the title and does not differentiate itself from siblings like konumlar_iller or konumlar_iller_il_ilceler, leaving an agent to guess why it would pick this one.

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?

The three input modes hint at when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no routing to the two sibling konumlar_* tools that overlap heavily with it. The trailing phrase 'Her pakette' concerns plan availability, not usage guidance.

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