Trendyol kılavuz sayfasını oku

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 useful behavior beyond that: the return format (markdown) and the empty-slug fallback that returns a list of all guides. It does not address pagination interaction between offset/maxChars, so it stays at a solid-but-limited 3.

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, front-loaded with the return type followed by the input format and the fallback behavior. No filler, though the fallback clause could be slightly tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return value (markdown page vs. guide list) and the input format. It is nearly complete for a read tool; only the offset/maxChars interplay for long pages is left implicit.

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 67%; the schema documents slug and offset, but maxChars has bounds only with no prose. The description reinforces slug semantics (slug OR full URL) and the empty-slug behavior, but adds nothing about offset or maxChars, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: returns a Trendyol documentation page as markdown, plus the fallback listing behavior. An agent can distinguish it from trendyol_search_docs, though the description never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 what to pass (slug like '2-authorization' or a full URL) and what happens if the slug is empty, which implies the listing use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over trendyol_search_docs, so the selection guidance is only implicit.

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