Get Emsal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no mention of what happens when a decision_id is missing, retrieval scope, or pagination behavior despite the 'page' parameter.

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 carry no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the telegraphic style is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is front-loaded with the resource but lacks any structural signal for the identifier/pagination relationship.

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. But for a 2-parameter tool where half the schema is undocumented, the description does not provide enough to call the tool confidently — 'page' behavior and identifier provenance remain unstated.

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 only 50%: decision_id is documented in the schema and the 'page' parameter has no description anywhere. The description merely repeats the schema's own note ('search_emsal id') instead of compensating for the undocumented pagination parameter.

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 fragment 'Emsal karar tam metni' identifies the resource (an emsal/precedent decision) and the scope (full text), which lets an agent distinguish it from search_emsal. However, it omits an explicit verb and reads as a label rather than a stated action, so the purpose is only implied.

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 phrase 'search_emsal id alanı' hints that a preceding search_emsal call supplies the identifier, which is a weak workflow cue. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of alternatives versus search_emsal/get_karar.

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