Açık veri kaynağından satırları oku (DataStore)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details: optional full-text filtering, pagination via limit/offset for large tables, and the fact that the total row count is included in the response. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loads the core function in the first sentence, then adds pagination guidance. The Turkish and English phrasing overlap slightly, but the English sentence clarifies the CKAN DataStore nature for a broader audience without adding significant noise.

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 output schema, annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the key operational concerns: filtering, pagination, and total row count. It could mention the prerequisite of obtaining a resource id from acikveri_veriseti more explicitly, but the parenthetical path already hints at this workflow.

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 five parameters. The description reinforces the role of limit, offset, and filtre in context (large tables and full-text search) but does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 reads columns and rows from a CKAN DataStore resource that is part of an open dataset, with optional full-text filtering. It references the parent resource path (acikveri_veriseti → kaynaklar → tabloServisi=true), which helps distinguish it from dataset-level tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 the tool is for retrieving DataStore table rows and gives practical advice for large tables (use limit and offset, total row count is in the response). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like acikveri_ara or acikveri_veriseti, nor does it provide exclusions.

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