erp_test_hook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions sending requests to external URLs but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read or write operation, what authentication is required, potential side effects, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a tool with no annotations and parameters for filtering stock data, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two short sentences that convey the core purpose. There's no unnecessary verbosity or redundant information. However, it could be better structured by front-loading the most critical information about what the tool actually does with the parameters provided.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of data is returned, how the external URL integration works, what testing scenarios it supports, or how the filtering parameters relate to the testing purpose. For a tool with this complexity and no structured metadata, the description should provide much more context.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters with their purposes. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide usage examples, or clarify the relationship between parameters like 'EsnekAramaKisiti' and 'StokID'. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool is for testing purposes and sends requests to external URLs, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specifically is being tested ('hooklar test edilir' - hooks are tested) and doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'erp_test_webhook'. The description restates the testing purpose without specifying the resource or operation clearly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's for testing purposes but doesn't specify what scenarios require this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose it over similar tools like 'erp_test_webhook'. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative approaches.

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