Akaryakıt pompa fiyatları (Opet, ilçe bazında)

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by explaining parameter-driven behavior: if 'yaka' is not given, both Anatolian and European sides are returned; if 'ilce' is given, only that district is returned. It does not disclose error handling or data freshness, but the annotations already cover safety, and the output schema exists, so the bar is lowered. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clarifications. Every sentence adds distinct information: the scope, the distributor limitation, and parameter behaviors. It is not overly verbose and avoids redundancy with the schema, though it could be tightened slightly by removing the English repetition.

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 tool with an output schema and openWorldHint, the description covers the essential usage context: the data source, the parameter effects, and the special case for Istanbul. It does not describe the output structure, but that is handled by the output schema. It also does not mention potential missing data for some districts, but openWorldHint implies this. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 value by clarifying the default behavior for 'yaka' (both sides if omitted) and the filtering effect of 'ilce', which are not evident from the schema alone. It also contextualizes the 'yaka' enum as specific to Istanbul. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 states the exact function: providing current fuel pump prices (benzin, motorin, gazyağı, kalorifer yakıtı, fuel oil) in TL from Opet, per district. It specifies the resource (Opet), the scope (district-based), and the currency, leaving no ambiguity. Since no sibling tool covers fuel prices, differentiation is unnecessary, and the description is entirely self-contained.

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?

It explicitly notes that prices are from a single distributor ('Tek dağıtıcının fiyatıdır') and that other brands may differ, which tells an agent when this tool is not appropriate. It also provides clear usage rules for the 'yaka' and 'ilce' parameters, such as the Istanbul split and default behavior when 'yaka' is omitted. This is strong guidance for correct invocation.

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