run_hepsiburada_products

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 a genuine operational trait beyond structured fields ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which helps cost planning, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure/pagination behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the identifier forms, a long return-field enumeration, and the cost note; every clause does work. The field list is somewhat dense but is the tool's main value-add given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (price, sellers, specs, variants, etc.) and disclosing the per-run cost. It stops short of telling the agent when this tool is preferred over the search sibling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description repeats the accepted identifier forms but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get full Hepsiburada product details') and scopes the identifier types accepted (SKU, product group id or URL). This clearly separates it from sibling run_hepsiburada_products_search, which returns listings rather than a single product's full record.

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?

The identifier types imply this is the single-product detail lookup versus the sibling search tool, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance or any exclusion for ambiguous identifiers.

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