fund_type_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, data freshness, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its intended function.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detaylar' (details) includes in the return values, behavioral aspects, or usage context. For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more information is needed to be complete.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'type' documented as 'Fon tipi kodu' (fund type code) and an enum list. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Belirli bir fon tipinin detaylarını getirir' translates to 'Retrieves details of a specific fund type.' This specifies the verb (retrieves/getirir) and resource (fund type details/fon tipinin detaylarını). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_fund_types' or 'fund_historical_data,' which might also involve fund type information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selection among sibling tools (e.g., 'list_fund_types' for listing types vs. this for details), or any exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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