president_axtar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it only covers titles/links vs full content. It does hint at scope (official titles and document links), which is its only added 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 compact single line in two languages, front-loading the core purpose. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but brief and unlikely to confuse an agent.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It omits query semantics, result format, and scope limits relative to siblings, so it is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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% and the single required parameter 'soz' has no description anywhere. The description does not explain that 'soz' is the search query (likely Azerbaijani for 'word'), so the agent gets no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (president.az) and names what it returns (official titles and document links). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like president_metn or the eqanun_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like president_metn (presumably for full document text) or the eqanun_* legal tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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