Province details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that, notably that it works offline and tolerates casing and missing Turkish characters, but it does not describe return structure or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Every clause contributes either input format, output scope, or offline behavior.

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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers input forms, output scope, and offline behavior. It stops short of describing the exact returned district structure or failure cases, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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% for the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by stating that names work in any casing and with or without Turkish characters, and that plate codes are also accepted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: look up a province by name or plate code and return its districts. This is clear enough to distinguish it from a bulk province list, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as list_provinces or find_district.

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 explains accepted query forms and that the tool works offline, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_provinces or find_district. There are no routing conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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