sozcu_headlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default category, the limit range 1..30, and the rough shape of returned items, but says nothing about freshness/live-scraping behavior, failure modes, rate limits, or auth needs; some of that burden is lifted by the output schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter facts, then return shape. The hard-wrapped enumeration of category values is readable but slightly noisy; nearly every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers selection, allowed category values, limit bounds, and return fields — enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps are the unstated limit default and no note on result ordering or freshness.

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 useful work by enumerating all valid category values and the default, which the schema only partially encodes (default gundem, no enum). The limit parameter is only given as a range (1..30) without noting the schema default of 10 or what limiting actually truncates, so it is not fully covered.

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: 'Top headlines in one Sözcü category', which clearly separates it from the newest-items sibling and the article/search tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'in one category' scoping makes the distinction inferable.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for browsing a single category's front-page headlines. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of when sozcu_latest or sozcu_search_news would be preferable.

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