donanimhaber_search_news

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are limited to the freshly fetched latest + technology listings, meaning older articles and other sections will not be found. That scope caveat is exactly the kind of hidden limitation an agent needs, though freshness/caching details and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the justification ("the site's own search ignores queries") placed before the mechanism explanation. Every clause adds information; only the slightly compressed "latest + technology listings" phrasing costs a moment of parsing.

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 return values needn't be described, and the tool is simple with only two parameters. The description covers purpose, match scope, result scope, and limit bounds — the remaining gap is ordering/pagination of results, which is minor for a bounded search over a fixed listing set.

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 does: it names the fields keyword matches against, and specifies the limit bounds (1..50) plus the implied default behavior via the schema's default of 10. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare integer/string schema lacks.

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+resource ("Search recent donanimhaber.com news by keyword") and scopes the match fields (title, summary, category). It also reveals the underlying mechanism — filtering freshly fetched latest + technology listings — which implicitly distinguishes it from donanimhaber_latest and donanimhaber_section, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Explains the operative condition for using this tool: the site's own search ignores queries, so this client-side filter is the way to do keyword lookup. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer donanimhaber_latest or donanimhaber_section instead (e.g., for browsing rather than searching), so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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