belge_dogrula

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses extensive behavioral details: validation checks (XML format, OASIS UBL 2.1 XSD, GİB e-Fatura schematron with 498 rules, arithmetic, signature), and the structure of findings (code, level, original message, line number, Turkish explanation and correction). This goes well beyond annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by useful details. It is slightly redundant because the English sentence at the end restates the Turkish opening, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers input selection, type auto-detection, the full validation scope, and output finding structure. An output schema exists, so return handling is already defined; the description still adds useful context, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the meaning of `dosya` (local path), `xml` (document text), and `tur` (enumerated values and auto-detection from root/ProfileID if omitted). It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'denetler' (audits) a UBL-TR document and later explicitly says 'Validates a Turkish UBL-TR e-invoice with the tax authority's own schematron and returns findings.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like belge_ozeti (summary) or bulgu_acikla (finding explanation).

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 description makes the usage context clear: it is for validation of UBL-TR documents. It explains how to provide input (dosya or xml) and how tur is determined. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but is still clear.

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