İade Durum Geçmişi (getClaimAudits)

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and the meaning of executorApp, indicating a read operation. However, it omits potential edge cases like empty results or error scenarios.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary details without extraneous text.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists returned fields (status history, date, operator) and explains the executorApp distinction. It could mention response structure or pagination, but it's sufficiently complete for a simple audit query.

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?

The parameter claimItemId has 100% schema coverage. The description adds valuable context: 'İade kalemi ID (getClaims: items[].claimItems[].id)', explaining where to find the value, which goes beyond the schema's minimal label.

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 the tool retrieves the status history of a claim item, including previous/new status, update date, and operator. It explains the executorApp field and distinguishes this from siblings like trendyol_get_claims.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to call after getting claims or before approving). The description only explains how to interpret results, not usage context.

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