tr_search_legislation

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the title/full-text search distinction, which is useful but duplicates the parameter baslikta_ara. It omits other behavioral details like pagination, result limits, or search semantics (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy matching), but with annotations present, the added context is sufficient for a 3.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description need not explain return values or parameter semantics. It covers the essential purpose, and the annotations cover side effects. However, it could benefit from a brief note on result behavior (e.g., returns matching legislation list) and perhaps a pointer to sibling tools for related operations, so it isn't a 5.

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 100%, with all 4 parameters having detailed descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Search Turkish legislation by title and/or full text.' This is a specific verb (search) with a specific resource (Turkish legislation) and search scope. It inherently distinguishes from siblings like tr_get_legislation_content and tr_get_legislation_toc, which focus on retrieval rather than search.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when not to use it or directing users to sibling tools for other use cases. The only cross-reference is in the schema for mevzuat_turu, which points to a type-listing tool but doesn't provide usage context.

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