Mevzuatın güncel tam metni

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the text is official, consolidated, plain text, delivered in 20,000-character chunks, and accompanied by an article list. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose. The bilingual repetition is mild but not wasteful, and the chunking detail plus the sibling routing sentence each earn their place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations, the description covers the main behavior, chunking, article list, and the key alternative. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state that at least one of no or kimlik is required, but the parameter descriptions strongly imply this. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 adds only marginal reinforcement about no versus kimlik and about baslangic as a continuation offset, but the schema already explains each parameter clearly. There is no substantial new semantic information in the description.

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 that the tool returns the official current consolidated full text of a Turkish act or regulation from mevzuat.gov.tr as plain text, in 20,000-character chunks, and that it also returns an article list. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mevzuat_madde by noting that the latter is shorter when a specific article is wanted.

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 an explicit routing condition: if a specific article is requested, use mevzuat_madde instead. It also implies through the kimlik parameter that mevzuat_ara should be used first to obtain the identity. However, it does not fully spell out when to choose this tool over other alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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