Amount in Turkish words (yazıyla)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by showing the exact output shape via an example, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not address edge cases such as zero, negatives, or very large numbers.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action, then the use case, then a worked example. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description plus the schema cover everything needed to call it correctly, and the example illustrates the return format. Only numeric edge-case behavior (negatives, rounding of the kuruş part) is left unstated.

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%, with both amount format and the currency enum (including NONE = plain number words) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("Write ... in Turkish words") plus a precise resource (a number or money amount), backed by a concrete worked example (1250.50 -> "Bin İki Yüz Elli Türk Lirası Elli Kuruş"). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like convert_currency or turkish_text.

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?

Names the concrete domains where this is needed (invoices, cheques, contracts), giving an agent a clear trigger for calling it. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing at an alternative tool, so it falls just below the top band.

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