İşinn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns public details and listing the returned fields, though it does not cover error behavior for invalid or missing IDs.

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 description is two tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the return behavior and then gives the usage 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It also compensates for the missing output schema by naming the key returned fields.

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 the single id parameter is already documented as a UUID from a search_vitrins result. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the public details of one İşinn listing. It also lists the returned fields and distinguishes this detail-fetching tool from search_vitrins.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool after search_vitrins when the user wants more detail about a result, which gives clear context and names the relevant sibling. It does not state explicit exclusions or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the filtering rule (only categories with active listings) and the shape of the payload (per-category listing counts and category page URL), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then adds the two pieces of information an agent needs (scope and return contents). No filler.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: what is returned and under what filter. A minor gap is the absence of any mention of result size, ordering, or pagination behavior for a catalog-listing call.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-catalog listing operation with no filtering inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the service categories on İşinn') and adds a meaningful qualifier: only categories with active listings. It does not name the sibling tools (get_vitrin, search_vitrins), but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 phrase 'currently have active listings' implies the scope of results, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_vitrin or search_vitrins, nor any prerequisite or follow-up guidance. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: a hard cap of 10 results, the exact fields returned, the absence of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, and that content is Turkish. What it omits is ranking/relevance behavior and whether results are paginated or exhaustive.

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 description leads with scope and example verticals, then the trigger, then the return shape, then the constraints – a sensible front-loaded order. One clause is mildly redundant with the schema ('up to 10 listings' when limit max is 10), but nothing is filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, the result cap, and the PII exclusion, plus the language caveat. For a zero-required-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented with examples and constraints in the schema itself. The description adds only the aggregate 'up to 10 listings' cap, which mirrors the limit maximum rather than explaining parameter interaction (e.g. how query, category and city combine).

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Searches public İşinn listings ("vitrin") of service providers in Turkey') with concrete example verticals that make the corpus immediately tangible. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_vitrin or list_categories, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step and those are detail/lookup steps.

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?

'Use when the user is looking for a service or a service provider in Turkey' gives a clear positive trigger and geographic boundary. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. 'use get_vitrin once you have a listing ID'), so the routing guidance stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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