Get Aym

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it doesn't mention that the returned full text may be long, that the 'page' parameter paginates it, or any rate/auth considerations for an open-world remote fetch.

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?

Two short fragments with zero filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded before the input-source hint. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured prose.

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 explained. Still, for a tool with a pagination parameter and a remote full-text fetch, the description leaves the 'page' semantics and the expected size/shape of the retrieved decision unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description merely repeats the schema's own wording for document_url ('search_aym document_url') rather than adding meaning. The 'page' parameter — the one with real semantic ambiguity (pagination of long decisions) — is explained nowhere in the description or 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?

Names the specific resource (AYM karar tam metni = full text of a Constitutional Court decision) and implicitly the retrieval action, and it distinguishes itself from search_aym by naming it as the source of document_url. However, the verb is never stated explicitly ('Get' only appears in the tool name/title), so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a stated action.

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?

It establishes the key workflow prerequisite: document_url must come from search_aym, which tells the agent this is a follow-up call to a search. It offers no guidance on when to use this versus other retrieval siblings (get_karar, get_emsal, get_mevzuat_content) and no exclusions.

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