Search 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, external-query profile is covered. The description adds only minor operational context (quote syntax for full sentences, source keyword list), and does not mention the 429-to-resmi fallback behavior that actually governs how calls behave.

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?

Telegraphic and front-loaded: purpose first, then source values, then the quote tip, then the follow-up tool. Zero filler. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but every element carries information.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool the description is thin, but the 93% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema relieve it of documenting parameters and return values. What is missing is any explanation of result ordering/pagination behavior and explicit sibling routing, leaving it adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 93%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the kaynak values (bedesten | resmi | hepsi) and the quote tip, both of which duplicate schema content, adding no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) plus the exact resource and the courts covered (Yargıtay, Danıştay, yerel hukuk, istinaf/BAM, KYB), so an agent can tell it apart from search_aym, search_emsal and search_mevzuat. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the enumerated court scope does the differentiation work.

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 trailing 'Sonra get_karar' establishes a follow-up workflow, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling search_aym/search_emsal/search_mevzuat tools, so selection guidance 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.