Tanımlı Trendyol mağazaları

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the scope is stores defined on this local machine, and API credentials are deliberately not returned, which tells the agent what it will and will not see. It stops short of describing ordering or empty-list 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the listing action, the returned fields, the security caveat, and the follow-up workflow. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the four fields returned and explicitly stating that API credentials are withheld. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance, and instead uses the space to describe the fields the call surfaces.

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 ('Kullanıcının bu bilgisayarda tanımladığı Trendyol mağazalarını listeler') and enumerates the returned fields (ad, satıcı ID, ortam, yazma izni). It also names the sibling tool that consumes the result (trendyol_call_api), so an agent can distinguish it from the doc/operation siblings without opening a schema.

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?

The description implies its role as a discovery step by explaining that with multiple stores the choice is made via the store parameter of trendyol_call_api, which is useful workflow context. However, it never explicitly states when to call this tool versus the sibling list tools, nor any exclusions.

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