Kaynakli vergi sirkuleri taslagi olustur

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

The description uses 'kurar' (creates), implying mutation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not clarify whether the draft is merely generated and returned without side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff but could benefit from a bit more structure or parameter hints.

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?

While output schema covers return info, the description omits explanations for all 5 parameters, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity. Annotations provide some safety context but do not compensate for missing parameter descriptions.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (e.g., 'konu', 'hedef_kitle', 'azami_kaynak'). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly use or interpret input values.

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 the tool creates a Markdown draft with GIB evidence and expert review areas, which distinguishes it from siblings that focus on calculations, listing sources, or auditing.

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 usage for creating a circular draft but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling names give context but not explicit guidance.

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