search_legislation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: abbreviations in query are auto-routed to mevzuat_no, scope='article' requires document_id, and the return shape (ok, query, results, total_results, warnings). It stops short of stating pagination behavior, error handling, or any auth/cost constraints, keeping it below 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 highest-value routing rules before the parameter list, and the Args/Returns structure is scannable. Some entries are terse to the point of near-redundancy (limit: 'Max results'), but overall every section earns its place.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning and summarizes the return dict, which is the right level of detail. Gaps remain around limit/pagination interplay and failure modes, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, yet the description documents all ten parameters with examples and constraints: mevzuat_adi with a worked example, mevzuat_no with '6698'→KVKK, scope values 'law'/'article' plus the document_id dependency, sort_by's three options, and mevzuat_tur_list's type values. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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+resource ('Search legislation via the Mevzuat source') and immediately clarifies the three search modes (title, number, body-text). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_decisions, mevzuat_korpus_ara, or search_local_corpus, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: use mevzuat_adi for titles, mevzuat_no for official numbers with an explicit warning ('never guess the number; if unsure use mevzuat_adi first'), and query for body-text. This is strong intra-tool guidance, but it never says when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools, so no explicit alternatives are named.

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