Akakçe favorites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the authentication requirement plus the exact contents returned in each mode (id/name/product count vs name/price/url). It stops short of mentioning pagination, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid listId, leaving a few behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded, the parameter branching follows, and the auth caveat closes it. Nothing is redundant with the schema or title.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields for both modes, so an agent can act on the result without guessing. Combined with the auth note, this is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only edge-case error behavior is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value by explaining the omitted-vs-supplied branching behavior of listId, which the schema alone does not convey. It also confirms the id comes from this tool's own output, reinforcing the schema's note.

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 ('Favori listelerini döndürür') and spells out the two distinct output modes keyed on listId, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with akakce_favorite_add/remove, but the read-oriented return description implicitly separates it from those mutations.

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?

Gives a clear conditional rule: omit listId to enumerate all lists, supply listId to get that list's products. It also discloses the login prerequisite ('Giriş gerektirir'), which is essential context for deciding whether the call will succeed. No explicit alternative tool is named, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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