Açık veri seti ayrıntısı ve dosyaları

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, open-world behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned and that open DataStore resources are handled by another tool, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, portal-specific quirks, or failure modes.

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 short and front-loaded, with the most important result contents stated first. There is some bilingual redundancy between the Turkish and English sentences, but the English sentence adds the useful 'municipal CKAN portal' context and the final sentence earns its place by routing to a sibling tool.

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 that the input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool returns, the CKAN context, and the boundary with acikveri_kayitlar for row-level data. It could be stronger with explicit when-to-use guidance, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 input schema already documents both `ad` and `portal` clearly, including the enum values for `portal`. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource: a dataset's description, license, and files/resources, including format, download link, and DataStore status. It does not use an explicit action verb, but it is specific and distinct enough from the sibling tools, especially by pointing row-level access to acikveri_kayitlar.

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 main use case (metadata/resource details) and explicitly routes table-service-enabled resources to acikveri_kayitlar for row-by-row reading. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over acikveri_ara or what preconditions exist beyond the schema hint that `ad` comes from acikveri_ara.

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