inflation_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('listeler') without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only vs. destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This leaves critical operational context missing for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure for more complex details, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable with minimal waste.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'inflation data' includes (e.g., rates, dates, sources), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a data-listing tool with 2 parameters, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'start_date' and 'end_date' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as date format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Enflasyon verilerini listeler' (Lists inflation data) states a clear verb ('listeler') and resource ('inflation data'), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'latest_inflation_rate' or 'monthly_inflation_rate', leaving ambiguity about what specific inflation data is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'latest_inflation_rate' and 'monthly_inflation_rate', the description lacks context on whether this tool is for historical ranges, aggregated data, or other use cases, offering no help in tool selection.

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