iys_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states no side effects and no credit consumption, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. Reference to external docs partially compensates.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words, and the reference link is appropriately placed.

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?

Given the nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers basic usage but lacks details on return format, error handling, or comparison with sibling tools. Complete enough for a simple check tool but could be improved.

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% per context, so description must compensate. The description does not explain individual fields (e.g., brandCode, recipientType), only mentions 'recipient' and 'consent status'. This is insufficient for proper parameter understanding.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('current İYS consent status'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool iys_register by mentioning verification of a submitted record.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided (verifying processed records, checking consent before sending, audit reports), and it states no side effects, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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