ara_fon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it searches and lists funds, but omits any behavioral details such as side effects (likely none), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a read-like operation, this minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 concise with several purposeful sentences and examples. It front-loads the main action and uses a clear structure. Slight room for improvement by separating sections, but overall efficient and not verbose.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete, covering tool role, usage examples, and connection to sibling tools. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or limitations, leaving gaps for a search tool. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning. It explains that 'metin' is a keyword or fund code (with examples like 'altın', 'AK PORTFÖY', 'TTE'), and 'limit' defaults to 20. This goes well beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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 searches/lists TEFAS funds by code or title, using specific verbs and examples. It distinguishes itself as the primary entry point for fund listing, filtering, and exploration, differentiating from siblings like donemsel_getiri_ozeti and karsilastir_fonlar which handle returns and comparisons.

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 clear context on when to use this tool first in multi-step queries, with concrete examples. It guides the agent to call this tool initially and then feed returned codes to other tools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the examples and first-step guidance make usage clear enough.

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