Search Kurum

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 adds search-behavior nuance ('semantik' resets downstream, phrase can hold a decision number or 'Karar Metni'), but does not mention paging limits, throttling, or what happens when a kurum does not support karar_no.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the action comes first and the kurum vocabulary and KİK tip follow. It is arguably cryptic for readers unfamiliar with the domain, but nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and 86% parameter coverage fills most gaps. Still, kurum-specific parameters such as karar_turu (with its implicit enum-like values) and extra (GİB law number) are only documented in the schema, leaving the description short of fully orienting the agent.

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 86%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (baseline 3). The description nonetheless adds value beyond the schema by explaining that for KİK the decision number can be supplied either via karar_no or via phrase, and by naming the accepted kurum codes, which the schema only lists in a generic description.

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 and resource ('Kurum kararı ara') and enumerates the valid kurum codes (kik, rekabet, sayistay, kvkk, bddk, btk, gib, sigorta_tahkim, uyusmazlik), which scopes the tool to institutional decisions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_karar or search_emsal, so the agent must infer the boundary from the enumerated institutions.

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_kurum' establishes a clear follow-up workflow and the KİK note indicates how to search by decision number, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_karar, search_emsal, or search_aym, nor any when-not conditions.

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