Plaka kodu ↔ il

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the read-only nature. The description adds the bidirectional behavior and the 81-province scope, which is helpful but does not go further into edge cases (e.g., handling of missing parameters or invalid input). This is adequate for a simple lookup with an output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core behavior and examples. The only minor inefficiency is the English restatement at the end ('Turkish province ↔ plate code lookup'), which partly duplicates the title and Turkish sentence, but overall the text is tight and scannable.

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 lookup tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and scope. It could be more explicit about whether one parameter is required or mutually exclusive, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and clear examples.

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%: both 'il' and 'kod' already have meaningful descriptions, including case-insensitivity and code range. The description's examples (34 → İstanbul, Ankara → 06) reinforce the mapping but do not add new constraints or clarify whether exactly one parameter must be provided. 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 a bidirectional mapping between plate code and province name, with concrete examples (34 → İstanbul, Ankara → 06) and scope (81 il). It is easily distinguished from siblings like tcmb_kurlar or dogrula_tckn, which cover unrelated domains.

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 clearly conveys the tool's domain and intended use: convert a Turkish plate code to province name or vice versa. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool list and the self-contained purpose.

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