tr_get_legislation_toc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond clarifying the Turkish term for article tree, providing marginal value in this dimension.

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 with no wasted words. The inclusion of the Turkish translation ('madde agaci') is useful for disambiguation and does not add unnecessary length.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with output schema), the description adequately states what it returns (article tree) and the parameter description covers input provenance. There are no significant gaps for invocation, though it could have mentioned the tree's depth or pagination, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, describing mevzuat_id as 'Document id, from a tr_search_legislation result,' which adds the provenance requirement. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('article tree (madde agaci / table of contents) of a document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tr_get_legislation_content (content) and tr_search_legislation (search). It is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 retrieving a document's table of contents, and the parameter description adds a workflow constraint by specifying the ID comes from tr_search_legislation, which gives clear context for how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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