Search Aym

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's only added behavioral content is that results carry a document_url, which is already implied by the output schema; it says nothing about pagination or what semantik re-ranking does in practice.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is telegraphic to the point of under-specification ('AYM ara.' is a fragment). Nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than being efficient compression.

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 detail is unnecessary, and the task itself is a simple search. Still, for a 4-parameter search tool the description should at least note the search-workflow positioning and pagination/semantic behavior; the current one-sentence-plus-fragments form leaves gaps.

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 75%, so the schema already documents keywords, semantik, and decision_type. The description's restatement of the two decision_type values duplicates the schema rather than adding meaning, and page/keywords/semantik receive no further explanation.

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 ('AYM ara' = search the Constitutional Court) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the retrieve sibling by naming get_aym for the follow-up step. It is clear enough to select over search_emsal/search_mevzuat for constitutional-court decisions, though it never says 'decisions' explicitly and drops to telegraphic fragments.

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 gives one concrete workflow cue – use the document_url from results with get_aym – which is genuine when-to-use guidance for the retrieval step. It offers no exclusions or criteria for choosing this over search_emsal/search_karar or for picking a decision_type, so the guidance is implied rather than complete.

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