İlçe ara: hangi ile bağlı, nüfusu, yüzölçümü

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is known to be read-only with a fixed dataset. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it returns all districts with matching names, supports partial matching, works offline, and can be narrowed by province. These details help set expectations about results without conflicting with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential behavior details. It is bilingual (Turkish/English), which adds length but is arguably necessary for this audience. There is no fluff; each clause delivers information. Slightly redundant due to translation, but still concise overall.

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 lookup tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters adequately. It explains partial matching, duplicate handling, narrowing, and offline operation. An agent has all necessary information to call this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 schema descriptions are 100% covering, providing basic meaning for both parameters. The description goes further by clarifying that the 'ilce' parameter accepts name parts (with example 'kadi' → Kadıköy) and that the 'il' parameter narrows results. This adds semantic value beyond the schema, though not extensive.

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 verb 'finds' and the resource: it finds which province a district belongs to, along with population and area. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like il_bilgisi (province info) and plaka_il (plate-to-province) by focusing specifically on district lookup, including handling of duplicate district names.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains that all districts with the same name are returned and can be narrowed using the 'il' parameter, and that partial names are supported. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it's appropriate.

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