Trendyol dokümantasyonunda ara

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are largely covered. The description does add a non-obvious behavioral trait (Turkish diacritic/character insensitivity) and confirms the corpus is its own documentation site, but says nothing about ranking, result ordering, or how hits map to the read/operation tools.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the example list consolidates query semantics efficiently. Slightly dense but no wasted 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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what a result looks like. It never says whether hits are operation names, IDs, or snippets that feed into trendyol_read_doc / trendyol_get_operation, which is the key missing detail for a discovery tool in this toolset.

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 67%: 'query' and 'kind' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' (min 1, max 30, default 10) is not described anywhere. The description's mention of 'kılavuzlar' and 'API işlemleri' loosely maps to the kind enum values guide/operation, and the examples clarify what a query string should look like – useful but only marginal beyond the schema.

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: searching all guides and API operations on developers.trendyol.com. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like trendyol_get_operation or trendyol_read_doc, but never names an alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 example queries ('stok fiyat güncelleme', 'iade onaylama', 'createProducts') illustrate when the tool is useful and imply the free-text nature of input. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to search versus going directly to trendyol_get_operation / trendyol_list_operations, nor any exclusions.

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