Resmî Gazete günlük fihrist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the date defaults to today and duplicate (mükerrer) issues are excluded. This is useful operational context not present in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes important caveats, but the Turkish and English sentences largely duplicate the same information. Still, it is compact and every major point is covered without excessive detail.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope, default date behavior, content types, sections, and the duplicate-issue exclusion. Nothing critical is missing.

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 single optional tarih parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and default value. The description repeats the default but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a daily table of contents for Türkiye's Official Gazette, listing issue number, sections, and document types. This distinguishes it from the sibling resmi_gazete_metin, which is for full gazette text.

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 states that it covers one day's contents and that omitting the date defaults to today, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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