Kategori ara

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious trait that matching spans Turkish and English names and that result sets include categories whose products match, not just name matches. It also states the key output field ('category' slug), though it does not describe ordering, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then workflow routing, then the selection heuristic. No repetition of schema fields and no filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 3-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (categories keyed by a 'category' slug) and how to use it. It stops short of describing the result fields (name, depth/parent, matched-product indication) that the 'most specific category' advice depends on.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by clarifying that the query is matched against both category names and product content and by giving worked examples ('mosfet', 'lineer regülatör', 'MLCC'). The 'language' parameter's effect is only implied through the bilingual examples rather than stated directly.

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?

"Find Özdisan product categories by name or by what they contain" gives a specific verb, resource, and two distinct matching modes. It also names the downstream siblings (get_category_filters, filter_products) that consume its output, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly says to feed the returned 'category' slug into get_category_filters and filter_products, and advises preferring the deepest matching category for parametric filtering — a real decision rule. It does not say when to pick this over search_products or browse_categories, which would have completed the routing picture.

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