run_trendyol_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 usefully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the return payload, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and accepted inputs, then the return contents and cost. Zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields, plus input options and cost. It is nearly complete for a single-param lookup; only edge behavior (invalid ID handling) is unstated.

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 100% and the only parameter ('product') is documented as an ID or URL with an example. The description adds that the ID is a 'contentId', a minor semantic addition, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get one Trendyol product') and enumerates the returned fields (price, brand, rating, attributes, variants, seller, other sellers). This is clearly distinct from a list tool, but it doesn't explicitly signal its boundary against siblings like run_trendyol_products_reviews or run_trendyol_products_sellers.

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 description implies usage by naming the two accepted inputs ('by contentId or URL') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent gets no signal on when to prefer this over the reviews or sellers siblings.

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