MGM meteorolojik uyarılar (yürürlükteki)

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already supplied by annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: warnings are currently in effect, the data is live from MGM, and an empty list is a meaningful result. It also discloses the filtering behavior when `il` is provided. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 most important information: what the tool returns and for which weather events. The bilingual phrasing is slightly redundant but not wasteful, and every key behavior is covered in a few sentences.

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 simple optional-parameter lookup tool, the description is complete: it states the data source, the active-warning scope, the included fields, the filtering semantics, and the empty-list behavior. The output schema exists to cover return values, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 already describes the `il` parameter in detail, including that it searches warning text and provides examples. The description's mention that results are filtered by matches in title or text adds only slight reinforcement and does not materially expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 returning currently active severe-weather warnings from Turkey's meteorological service, and specifies what each warning contains: event type, severity, risks, validity, and full text. This is a specific verb+resource combination and is easily distinguished from the sibling mgm_hava_durumu, which covers weather forecasts rather than warnings.

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 for when the tool is relevant: active warnings only, with optional province filtering.innerText It explains that no warnings results in an empty list, which is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose lookup tool.

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