armut_search_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose matching semantics (Turkish or ASCII input, matches names/slugs rather than descriptions) and enumerates returned fields, which is useful context. It says nothing about limit behavior, result ranking, case/diacritic handling, or pagination, which an agent needs to invoke it predictably.

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?

A single compact block, front-loaded with the action and resource, then query semantics, then return shape. Every clause carries information; the only cost is density — the return-value parenthetical is packed into the same run-on sentence rather than separated.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description did not need to enumerate return fields (though it helpfully does). It covers the hard part — multilingual query matching — and its only real omission is `limit`, which leaves the agent guessing about result-size control for a 6,759-item catalogue.

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. It handles `query` well (language/encoding tolerance, concrete Turkish examples, what the string is matched against) but leaves `limit` completely unexplained — no mention of its default of 10 or its effect on result volume.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search Armut's service catalogue ... by keyword') and scopes it with the catalogue size and matching target (service names/slugs). It also signals the entry-point role ('use the slug with the other tools'), which implicitly separates it from armut_service_detail and armut_price_guide, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use the slug with the other tools' tells the agent this is the starting point of a workflow, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it — e.g. browsing by popularity (armut_trending_services) or when a slug is already known — so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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