ABD karar tam metni getir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'tam metnini' (full text) contradicts the maks_karakter parameter which caps returned length, meaning the text may be truncated. It also fails to mention permissions, error cases, or return format, and the truncation behavior is especially relevant for the verbatim-passage guarantee.

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 extremely concise: two sentences convey purpose, ID provenance, and a key use case. No redundant words, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description explains the basic flow (search then retrieve) and return content type. However, it does not mention that the length may be capped by maks_karakter or describe the output structure, leaving notable gaps for an 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 100% and the schema already describes both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, and the 'full text' wording conflicts with the length-limit parameter. Baseline 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 the verb ('getirir'), the resource ('bir gorusun tam metnini ve kunyesini'), and specifies that opinion_id comes from the us_karar_ara result. This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool.

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?

It tells the agent that the tool should be used after a search (opinion_id is from us_karar_ara) and states a specific use case (footnote verification). However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit search workflow.

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