list_companies

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 pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. For a listing tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, filtering behavior (beyond what parameters imply), or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying listing functionality. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, even though the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 'Portföy yönetim şirketlerini listeler' (Lists portfolio management companies) states a clear verb ('listeler') and resource ('portfolio management companies'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_funds' or 'company_details'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of listing this is.

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 sibling tools like 'company_details' (for specific company info) and 'list_funds' (for listing funds), the description doesn't indicate this is for browsing/listing companies rather than getting details or other resources. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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