arabam_search

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are "compact listings" rather than full records, and it enumerates the returned fields, which tells the agent to expect a summary shape. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, result count per page, or what happens beyond page 50 (the range is given but not the failure mode), so the mutation/safety profile is left implicit.

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?

Two dense sentences with the resource and return shape front-loaded, then per-parameter notes. Nothing wasted, though the terse shorthand ("page: 1..50") reads more like a schema comment than prose. The trailing sentence partly restates what the output schema already declares.

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 three-optional-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers filters, precedence, pagination bounds and result shape, which is nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it. Since an output schema exists, the field enumeration is redundant-but-harmless rather than compensating. Missing only edge-case behavior for empty filters or out-of-range pages.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: it gives slug examples for brand ("bmw") and model ("bmw-3-serisi"), marks both optional, defines the brand/model precedence, and bounds page to 1..50. The only gaps are the default values (empty string, page 1) and whether slugs must match exactly, which remain unstated.

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: "Search used-car listings." That is clearly distinct from the read-one sibling (arabam_listing_detail), the enumeration siblings (arabam_list_brands / arabam_list_models) and the aggregate sibling (arabam_price_stats). It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation comes from the resource rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: filter by brand or model, paginate with page. The parenthetical "(optional, overrides brand)" is a genuine usage rule that tells the agent model subsumes brand, which is valuable. However, there is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of arabam_listing_detail for full records, and no guidance on what to do when neither filter is supplied.

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