Get Karar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the id format details (bedesten or yargitay:/danistay: prefixed official id), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, disclose pagination behavior despite having a 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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the resource is stated first, then the required id convention. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic fragment style slightly reduces readability.

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. For a two-parameter getter with annotation coverage, the essentials (which id to pass and its format) are present, but the page parameter and any explicit usage conditions are absent.

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 50%. The description adds meaningful detail on document_id (the accepted prefix formats bedesten, yargitay:, danistay:), which goes beyond the schema's terse "search_karar document_id". However, the page parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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: retrieving the full text ("tam metni") of a karar (court decision). It names search_karar as the source of the id, which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_mevzuat_content or get_aym. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those similarly named siblings, leaving the reader to infer the resource boundary.

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 reference to "search_karar document_id" implies this tool is used after a search_karar call, which is useful workflow context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no guidance on the page parameter. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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