return_clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool performs a clustering/aggregation over a time window rather than a raw read, but says nothing about result shape, thresholds, or performance characteristics beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the clustering intent plus the parenthetical root-cause gloss arrive immediately. It is arguably too terse for a tool with 0% schema coverage, but as structure goes it is efficient and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is parameter meaning (notably min_count) and any indication of how clusters are keyed, which leaves the definition only marginally complete for a zero-coverage schema.

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 carries the full burden. It gestures at the 'days' parameter with 'Son N günde' but never ties it to the argument name or explains the default of 30, and it completely ignores 'min_count' (default 3), which controls how many repeats are needed to form a cluster – a critical semantic for interpreting results.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('aynı nedenle tekrarlayan iadeleri gruplar' – groups returns that repeat for the same reason) plus a temporal scope, and the 'iade kök nedeni' (return root cause) gloss makes the output intent unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_returns, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 embeds its own use case – finding returns that recur for the same root cause – which implies when an agent should reach for it instead of a plain listing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions alternatives such as list_returns, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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