Trendyol API işleminin ayrıntıları

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered; the description adds genuine value by detailing the shape of the payload returned (schemas, required-field asterisk convention, examples, TS code). With no output schema present, this return-content disclosure is exactly the kind of context the description should carry, though it says nothing about size or truncation of large operation definitions.

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 dense sentence with the resource named first and the returned artifacts listed after the colon, so nothing is wasted. The trailing enumeration is long but each item is informative, and the '*' convention note earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description successfully enumerates what comes back and how required fields are marked, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain: no mention of behavior for an unknown operationId or of response size limits.

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%: both operationId (with concrete examples) and rawSchema (raw JSON Schema vs. simplified draft) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the output-side note about required fields being marked with '*', not new parameter semantics. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns the full definition of a single API operation, enumerating exactly what is included (URLs, parameters, request body schema, response schema, examples, TypeScript sample). It is clearly distinct from trendyol_list_operations (enumeration) and trendyol_call_api (execution), but it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 rather than stated: the mention of full schemas, examples and code suggests calling it before trendyol_call_api or after trendyol_list_operations, but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition or alternative is spelled out. An agent must infer the position of this tool in the workflow.

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