enabiz_get_diagnosis_detail

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

Discloses that the detail HTML is reduced to readable plain text and truncated if long (DETAIL_TEXT_LIMIT). Also states authentication requirement and error on missing auth. Annotations already mark readOnly and openWorld, but description adds specific behaviors.

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?

Short, efficient description with purpose first, then source, then processing details and auth requirement. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 simple tool with output schema present, description covers purpose, input, processing, and authentication. No gaps for selecting and invoking 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 has 0% description coverage, but description compensates fully by explaining sys_takip_no is from the list tool's output, giving clear context for the single parameter.

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?

Clearly states it returns the detail text of a diagnosis ('detay metnini döndürür') using a specific identifier. Distinguishes from sibling tool enabiz_list_diagnoses by specifying input from that list.

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?

Explicitly says to use with sys_takip_no from enabiz_list_diagnoses output. Mentions required authentication and error response. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the parent list tool.

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