Ürün QC Onay Durumu (update-audits)

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns statuses, reject reasons, and changed/current values, and lists update types. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, but the read nature is implied. Overall, it provides sufficient behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the main purpose and then detail the return structure. No extraneous information; every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return structure in sufficient detail. It lacks mention of limitations like time range or permissions, but is still complete enough for a typical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'contentId' described as 'Ürün içerik ID'. The description mentions 'contentId bazında', adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 returns QC results for product update requests by contentId, specifying the return structure (status per update type, reject reasons, changed values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trendyol_get_product_status, which returns product status rather than audit results.

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 implies use when needing QC results for product updates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Given no sibling confusion, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer usage.

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