e-Fatura, CSV veya XLSX denetle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (no mutation) and openWorldHint=false. Description adds critical context: data is processed locally ('without sending out') and that this is not full GIB XSD/Schematron or cryptographic verification. This goes beyond 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?

Two sentences: first states functionality, second adds constraints and limitations. Efficient and front-loaded. Minor improvement could be separating parameter guidance.

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?

Description explains what the tool does and its limitations. However, with 3 undocumented optional parameters and no output format details, the description leaves gaps about how to invoke the tool correctly. Output schema presence reduces burden, but input usage guidance 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?

Input schema has 3 parameters (base64_xml, dosya_yolu, xml_icerigi) with 0% description coverage. Description does not explain the purpose of each parameter, how they differ, or when to use which. Only file path constraint is mentioned. This is severely inadequate.

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?

Description states specific action: structural/mathematical inspection of UBL-TR XML or tabular files (e-Fatura, CSV, XLSX) without sending data out. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tax calculation 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only mentions file path constraints, but does not compare with alternatives or explain when to choose this tool over others.

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