Canli vergi takvimini getir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool filters and can produce ICS, but does not elaborate on behavior like data freshness, pagination, or error states. With annotations covering core traits, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action (filtering) and adds the optional ICS generation. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate lines) without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters (including enums and date formats) and zero schema coverage, the description is far too brief. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input parameters are completely undocumented, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'filters' and 'ICS production' without explaining any of the 7 parameters (konu, limit, vergi_turu, ics_olustur, tarih_alani, bitis_tarihi, baslangic_tarihi). No parameter meaning, format, or usage hints are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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's purpose: filtering GIB's live declaration/payment calendar and optionally generating ICS text. It uses a specific verb ('filtreler' and 'uretilir') and resource ('canli vergi takvimi'). It is distinguishable from siblings like calculation or listing tools, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., kdv_hesapla, stopaj_hesapla). There is no mention of when not to use it or what alternatives exist. The description omits usage context entirely.

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