armut_price_guide

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose key behavioral facts an agent needs — currency (TRY), the 12-month window, the national default when city is omitted, and the shape of the returned data. It does not address whether data is cached/live, any rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid slug, so the read-only safe-lookup profile has to be inferred.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the payload contents are front-loaded and the parameter guidance is appended where an agent looks for it. The dense enumeration is long but each item conveys distinct returned data, so it earns its space.

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?

Both parameters are explained despite zero schema coverage, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out — yet the description still summarises them usefully. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters given four other armut_* tools that could plausibly return price or pro information.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it gives a concrete service_slug example ('ev-temizligi') and explains that city is an optional slug ('adana') defaulting to all of Türkiye. The only shortfall is that it does not say how to obtain a valid slug or what happens if one is wrong.

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 states a specific resource — a price guide for a service — and enumerates exactly what it contains (page-listed min/max price in TRY, 12-month averages with quote counts, pro count, rating, example jobs, reviews). That is well beyond a restatement of the name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as armut_service_detail or armut_list_pros, which likely overlap on pricing and pro data.

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 by the content list plus the city default ('default: all Türkiye'), which tells an agent how to get national vs city-level results. There is, however, no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when another sibling tool would be the better choice.

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