Metro İstanbul duyuruları: arıza, sefer düzenlemesi, kapalı istasyon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields (title, full text, start date) and notes the announcements are 'current', which provides some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination or data freshness, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 bilingual (Turkish and English), which adds redundancy but remains concise. It front-loads the key purpose and lists examples. The structure is clear and not overly verbose, though the bilingual repetition could be streamlined.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, content types, and return fields. An output schema exists, so the return structure is likely documented. For a simple tool with one optional parameter and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and examples of output, but that's not critical here.

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 input schema has one parameter 'ara' with a description that fully explains it as a search fragment in title/text with an example 'M2'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it stays at the baseline.

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 tool as providing current service announcements (disruptions, schedule changes) from Istanbul's metro operator, listing specific types (breakdowns, closed stations, night metro changes) and the content fields (title, full text, start date). It's specific about the resource and purpose, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ibb_metro, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, conditions, or when to prefer a sibling tool like ibb_metro for static metro information. The description is purely informational with no usage direction.

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