Mevzuat ara (kanun, yönetmelik, tebliğ, CB kararı…)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the search covers both title and full text, returns a `kimlik` identifier for downstream calls, and provides a concrete example. It doesn't disclose pagination or result count behavior beyond the limit parameter, but the schema covers that.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core search capability, then the downstream workflow, then an example. The Turkish/English mix is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the search scope, the downstream use of `kimlik`, and gives an example. It could mention result ordering or default behavior, but the schema and annotations cover the essentials.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the search-scope context (title or full text) and the example query, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool searches mevzuat.gov.tr by title or full text, with specific search dimensions (law number, name, type, acceptance date, Official Gazette info). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the returned `kimlik` is used to call mevzuat_metin and mevzuat_madde, which differentiates it from other search tools like acikveri_ara.

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 a concrete example query and explains the follow-up workflow (use `kimlik` with mevzuat_metin/mevzuat_madde). It implies when to use this tool versus the mevzuat_metin/mevzuat_madde siblings, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like resmi_gazete_fihrist.

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