Müşteri Sorularını Listele (questionsFilter)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that Trendyol silently adjusts dates beyond 2 weeks and that this tool rejects such ranges to prevent data loss. It also mentions that userName is only filled if showUserName=true and that dates are epoch milliseconds. However, it references a parameter (showUserName) that does not exist in the input schema, which is a minor contradiction.

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 but is information-dense and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes unique value. It could benefit from bullet points for easier scanning, but it is not overly verbose.

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 listing tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the response format (id, userName, dates), links to reference data for status descriptions, and gives cross-tool usage guidance for trendyol_create_answer and trendyol_get_question_by_id. It covers pagination, date filtering, and sorting options adequately.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the date range constraint in detail, recommending status usage, and linking response fields to other tools. However, it mentions a non-existent parameter showUserName, which reduces reliability.

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 that the tool lists customer questions with pagination. It distinguishes itself from related tools like trendyol_get_question_by_id by explaining how the id from this tool can be used. The verb 'listele' (list) and resource 'sorular' (questions) are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (listing questions with pagination) and how to narrow down to answerable questions (status=WAITING_FOR_ANSWER). It also explains the date range limitation and recommends breaking long ranges into 2-week chunks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools like trendyol_get_question_by_id for a single question.

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