bulgu_acikla

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's content is consistent. It adds behavioral detail about the output (which field was rejected, why, how to fix) and notes the explanation is in Turkish, which is valuable 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 concise, with two sentences. The English sentence 'Explains a finding code' is a redundant translation of the Turkish, but it does not add unnecessary length. The main information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the input, and the output content. The output schema likely covers return structure, so this is sufficient.

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 schema provides no parameter description (0% coverage). The description compensates by identifying the parameter as a finding code and giving examples like 'sch-GeneralUnitCodeCheck-1' and 'hesap-dip-odenecek', clarifying the expected input.

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 explains a finding code, providing the Turkish explanation, the rejected field, reason, and fix. It includes concrete code examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle documents (belge_ozeti, belge_dogrula) rather than findings.

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 implies usage: when you need to explain a finding code. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving differentiation to the agent.

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