Ürün ara

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: corpus size (~1M), that results include per-category match counts, best matches with stock, VAT-excluded starting prices, key specs, and quick matches from other categories. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result limits beyond the page_size parameter, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and search mode, followed by return shape, then narrowing, then the alternative routing. The parenthetical example lists are dense but functional; a couple of examples would have sufficed instead of five.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, naming the match counts, product entries with stock/price/specs, and cross-category quick matches. For a 7-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage it is close to complete, missing only pagination/total-count semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including the enums and the category identifier formats. The description reinforces category scoping and VAT-excluded pricing but adds no format rules or defaults the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword / part-number search across all ~1M Özdisan products') with concrete query examples ('STM32F103', '10uF 0805'), which makes the retrieval mode unambiguous. It also explicitly separates itself from parametric search by naming the sibling chain to use instead.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use this tool for keyword/part-number lookups, pass 'category' to constrain to one category, and for parametric selection (with a concrete example, 'LDO 3.3V 500mA SOT-23') use search_categories → get_category_filters → filter_products. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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