Search Emsal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds that it targets a public database rather than personal files, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or result behavior, leaving gaps beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before the scope qualifier. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's 7 parameters.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter search tool with date filters and semantic reordering, the description is thin and omits any guidance on the richer parameters.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters (keyword, dates, years, semantik). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail for any parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (ara/search) and resource (UYAP Emsal kamu emsal kararı), and clarifies the scope by excluding personal UYAP files. It does not differentiate itself from sibling search tools like search_karar or get_emsal, so it stops short of full sibling discrimination.

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 parenthetical '(kişisel UYAP dosyası değil)' implies when-not (personal UYAP files) but gives no explicit when-to-use conditions or named alternatives among siblings. 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.