yonetmelik_bilgisi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the exact types of information returned (regulation, gazette, calendar, source lines, version), which clarifies the tool's scope beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences and roughly 30 words, which is appropriately concise. However, the second sentence in English ('Which regulation this tool encodes, with the phased deadlines.') largely repeats the first sentence's content, adding redundancy. Still, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient overall.

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 metadata-only tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the key return elements (regulation, gazette, calendar, source lines, version). It does not detail the output format, but the output schema presumably handles that. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what information it will receive.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output content rather than parameters, since there are none to explain.

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 returns regulatory metadata: the regulation, Official Gazette date/number, validity, IFC calendar, data source lines, and version. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yonetmelik_kontrolu (regulation check) and model_ozeti (model summary) by focusing on static regulatory information rather than validation or summaries.

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 this is a reference/metadata lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this when you need the regulation basis' or exclusions. The context is somewhat clear from the name and purpose, but no direct guidance is given.

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