Belgeleri İmzala (SMS Doğrulama)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly warns that signing is irreversible and creates fiscal data in the tax system, providing critical behavioral transparency for a destructive action.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of two sentences, front-loaded with the essential warning followed by usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, part of a multi-step process, no output schema), the description explains the purpose, prerequisites, and behavioral implications completely. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces the workflow but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Belgeleri İmzala (SMS Doğrulama)' meaning 'Sign Documents (SMS Verification)' and explains that it finalizes documents in the tax system, making them immutable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gib_start_sms_verification and other document operations.

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 description specifies that the tool requires the SMS code, oid from gib_start_sms_verification, and UUIDs of documents to sign. It implies the correct usage context but does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or state when not to use.

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