Resmî Gazete maddesinin metni

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

Annotations already convey read-only and open-world intent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: long texts are read incrementally via baslangic, only resmigazete.gov.tr URLs are accepted, and PDF items yield a link rather than extracted text. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but the output schema and read-only annotations cover much of that burden.

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 main operation, then lists restrictions and edge cases. The Turkish and English versions repeat the same information, which adds slight redundancy, but every distinct piece of guidance is useful and the overall length is appropriate.

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 two-parameter read-only fetch tool, the description covers the essential operational details: source of the URL, accepted domain, plain-text vs. PDF behavior, and pagination for long texts. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure, and nothing critical is missing 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 schema already explains both url and baslangic. The description adds mild context by tying url to a fihrist .htm page and baslangic to long-text continuation, but it does not meaningfully go 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 states a specific action and resource: it returns plain text of a .htm Official Gazette item from the fihrist, naming document types (regulation, notification, decision). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding PDF items, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools like resmi_gazete_fihrist and mevzuat_metin.

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 explicitly scopes usage to .htm items from the fihrist, restricts input to resmigazete.gov.tr addresses, and states the alternative behavior for PDF items (a link is returned, text is not extracted). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without requiring inference.

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