Get Kurum

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 that the return is the FULL text (vs. a summary/snippet), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about the pagination implied by the 'page' parameter or any retrieval limits.

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 no filler, and the primary output (full text) is front-loaded. But it is so telegraphic that it reads as notes rather than a complete instruction, and the parenthetical document_id note is ambiguous.

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-value structure need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 3-parameter open-world retrieval tool, the description omits pagination behavior and any failure/not-found semantics, leaving it minimally complete.

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 67%. The description adds genuine value by clarifying the document_id format as 'kurum:id veya URL', which the schema only labels as 'search_kurum document_id'. However, the 'page' parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, and the kurum code list is only in the 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 resource and scope: the full text ('tam metni') of a kurum decision. This distinguishes it from search_kurum, which returns matches rather than full documents. It is clear, though terse and telegraphic rather than a complete sentence.

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_kurum document_id' implies the intended workflow (search first, then retrieve by document_id), which is adequate implied usage guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs. siblings or what happens if the id is invalid/expired.

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