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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-window scoping and the shape of returned data, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication needs, or result limits.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource (404s) and scope (last N days). It is efficient, though the enumerated field list borders on restating output that the output schema already provides.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it mostly does. However, it omits any routing guidance among the sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess which tool answers a 'recent errors' question.

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 three parameters (site, api_token, gun_sayisi) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Son N gundeki' loosely mirrors gun_sayisi but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource: listing 404 errors over the last N days, plus the fields returned (adres, vurus, oturan sayisi). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like gunluk_ozet or oneriler.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling summary/suggestions tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The 'last N days' scoping is implied only through the parameter default.

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