olke_adi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of what happens on an unrecognized input, no return format, and no clarification of how 'full and short form' are delivered. Only the underlying data source is mentioned.

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 definition is short and front-loads the English statement before the Azerbaijani mirror. The bilingual duplication is mild redundancy but costs little and the entry is not bloated.

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?

A one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain input format and expected return; neither is present. The definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently.

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% for the single required parameter 'ad', and the description does not compensate — it never says whether 'ad' expects a country name in Azerbaijani, English, or a code, nor whether it is exact-match. The one parameter is effectively undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (the official Azerbaijani name of a state) and its scope (full and short form), but supplies no verb and does nothing to separate it from siblings like eqanun_akt or mfa_metn. An agent can guess it is a lookup, but the purpose is only implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the eight sibling tools. The parenthetical '(mfa.gov.az əsaslı yerli siyahı)' hints at the data source but says nothing about when this tool should be chosen.

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