Resmî parametreler: asgari ücret, SGK taban/tavan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds meaningful behavior: every figure is accompanied by its source instrument, derived values are explained in the `turetme` field, and the embedded year set is limited to 2026, which informs how the tool will respond.

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-loads the resource and values before the version limitations. The bilingual Turkish/English repetition adds length but serves dual-language users, and every substantive clause (source, derived values, exclusions) earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the data scope, source attribution, derived-value field, embedded year limitation, and explicit exclusions. No critical calling context 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 only parameter `yil` is fully described in the schema (year, default current year), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds critical semantics by disclosing that only 2026 is embedded in this version, which materially qualifies the allowed 2000–2100 range in 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 names a specific resource — Türkiye's official annual minimum wage and SGK earnings floor/ceiling — and enumerates exact fields (daily gross, monthly gross, monthly net, floor/ceiling), each with its source instrument. It also states exclusions (severance cap, income tax brackets), which clearly differentiates it from sibling data tools.

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 implies use for retrieving official Turkish annual parameters and explicitly says severance-pay ceiling and income-tax brackets are absent, which is a useful when-not. However, it does not name alternatives or give decision rules for choosing between this and related tools such as resmi_gazete or tcmb_kurlar.

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