Vergi Kimlik Numarası biçim kontrolü

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

Annotations already signal read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds valuable operational detail: it performs no GİB lookup and does not verify taxpayer existence. This clearly discloses what the tool does and does not do, consistent with the 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 short and front-loaded with the core function, followed by important exclusions. The English summary is slightly redundant with the Turkish text but adds accessibility for agents operating in English, so it remains appropriately concise.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints: offline operation, no existence check, and checksum-only validation. It does not describe error behavior for invalid input lengths, but the schema and simple scope make this a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the 10-digit constraint ('10 hane') and adds the Turkish tax ID context, but it does not add format constraints beyond the schema, such as digit-only or no separators.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it computes the checksum digit of a Turkish tax ID (VKN). It clearly distinguishes itself from online/existence-checking tools by explicitly stating 'GİB sorgusu yapılmaz, mükellefin varlığı doğrulanmaz', and the English summary reinforces the offline checksum-only scope.

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 context through its limitations: it is appropriate for offline checksum validation, not for verifying taxpayer existence. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like dogrula_tckn or dogrula_iban, nor does it name alternatives.

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