tuik_search_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important behaviors: case-insensitive substring matching and all-theme scope. But it omits additional context such as behavior with no matches, pagination, or whether results are summaries, which would improve transparency.

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 appropriately short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a compact Args section. Every sentence contributes either scope, an example, or a parameter detail, with 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral scope. It lacks explicit alternative differentiation but remains complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining 'query' with concrete Turkish examples ('işgücü', 'tüketici fiyat') and clarifying that 'lang' accepts 'tr' or 'en'. This adds functional meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('TUIK table names'), and adds scope ('across all themes') plus a key behavior ('case-insensitive substring'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'tuik_list_tables'.

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 use case is implied: use this tool to find tables by substring search across themes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no when-not-to-use advice, and no reference to sibling tools.

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