İl bilgisi: nüfus, yüzölçümü, plaka, alan kodu, bölge, ilçeler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the lookup is 'çevrimdışı/offline' and enumerates the exact data domains returned, which is useful beyond the annotations. No destructive or auth behavior needs disclosure for this read-only tool.

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 definition is compact: a Turkish field list, an English summary, and a short parameter note. There is minor bilingual redundancy, but the sentences are short and front-loaded, and each contributes either scope, field detail, or usage instruction.

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 and read-only annotations, the description covers scope (all 81 provinces), offline behavior, accepted parameter forms, and the optional district list toggle. It is sufficient for correct invocation; only minor details such as error behavior are omitted, which are 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete accepted formats ('İstanbul, izmir, 06') and clarifies the behavior of ilceler=false. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions and helps the agent pick correct inputs.

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 explicitly names the resource ('Bir ilin kimliği' / Province profile) and enumerates the fields returned: plate code, population, area, altitude, area codes, coastal/metropolitan status, region, coordinates, and district counts. It scopes the tool to 'any of Türkiye's 81 provinces', making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like iller_listesi or plaka_il.

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 gives clear context: it is an offline single-province profile lookup for any of Türkiye's 81 provinces, and it explains how to use the parameters ('il ad ya da plaka kodu', 'ilceler=false ile ilçe listesi atlanır'). It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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