mevzuat_korpus_ara

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the offline/local nature, that the corpus only contains already-fetched documents, the different recall behavior of each mode, and the fields returned. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any auth context, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then modes, then the critical false-negative caveat, then result shape. Dense but every clause carries information; the inline key:value layout reads slightly like notes rather than prose but wastes nothing.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the mode semantics, the scope-limiter, the return fields, and the important operational caveat about empty results. What remains missing (limit/pagination, ranking details) is minor.

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, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: mode is given three named values with semantic explanations, and mevzuat_no is explained with a concrete example ('6098'). Only 'limit' is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the obvious default of 20.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('YEREL korpusta MADDE bazında arama') and scopes it to offline, article-level search, which cleanly separates it from the remote sibling search_legislation. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 warns that 0 results does not mean 'no provision' and routes the agent to search_legislation, and it explains when to pick each mode (lexical vs semantic vs hybrid). It lacks an explicit statement of the positive condition for using this local tool over the remote one, so it falls just short of 5.

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