ilac_ara

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: case- and Turkish-character-insensitivity, and the ordering rule that active products are listed first. It does not discuss result volume or what limit does, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with the core action and all query formats front-loaded, followed by normalization and ordering behavior. Nothing is redundant and nothing restates the tool name without adding 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 read-only nature is covered by annotations. The description supplies query semantics and sort order, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly; the only gap is guidance on 'limit' and 'sadece_aktif'.

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, and it does so well for 'sorgu' by specifying all four accepted input formats and the expected normalization. However, 'limit' and 'sadece_aktif' are never explained — only indirectly hinted at by 'aktif ürünler önce listelenir' — leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 ('İlaç arar') and enumerates the exact query forms accepted (product name, active ingredient, barcode 8-14 digits, ATC code with example). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like ilac_detay, so an agent must infer that this is the search entry point, but the purpose itself is 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?

Usage is implied by the query-format list (use this when you have a name, substance, barcode, or ATC code), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to ilac_detay or esdeger_bul. The agent can guess the entry point but is not told what to do after a search or when a different sibling is better.

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