esdeger_bul

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful scope: equivalence means same ATC code and dose, 'farkli_doz' contains other doses of the same active ingredient, and pharmaceutical form and reimbursement are not covered. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return structure is left to the output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by actionable caveats. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. However, with no parameter explanations and no explicit sibling routing, the description leaves the agent guessing how to fill 'barkod' and 'sadece_aktif'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It never mentions 'barkod' (the required identifier) or 'sadece_aktif' (default true), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from field names alone. This is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bir ilacın eşdeğerlerini bulur') and defines the matching criteria (same ATC code and same dose). It is distinguishable from ilac_ara and ilac_detay, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Implies usage for equivalence lookup by barcode, and advises checking pharmaceutical form and SGK reimbursement separately, which hints at routing to other tools. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ilac_detay or ilac_ara, nor any exclusions beyond the caveat.

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