karsilastir_fonlar

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as data freshness, error handling, or side effects. It only states what is compared without further transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single-line purpose and a bulleted args list. No wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings adequately but omits behavioral context, usage boundaries, and return format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter: fon_1/fon_2 as fund codes and periyod with a range ('hafta..5yil'). This adds meaning 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 it compares price performance and portfolio distributions of two funds, using the verb 'karşılaştırır'. It distinguishes from siblings which are single-fund operations like get_fon_fiyat or ara_fon.

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 implies usage for fund comparison but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like donemsel_getiri_ozeti or get_fon_portfoy.

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