search_direct_procurements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions the API endpoint but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond optional cookies, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite having page_index parameter). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the search function and endpoint, another listing return fields. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key usage context. Every sentence provides concrete information about the tool's operation.

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?

Given the complex 20-parameter search tool with no annotations but with complete schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks important context about when to use it, behavioral constraints, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or search logic. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search Direct Procurements'), target resource ('via EKAP'), and technical endpoint ('YeniIhaleAramaData.ashx, metot=dtAra'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_direct_procurement_details or search_tenders that perform different operations. It also lists the exact return fields, making the purpose highly specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_tenders or get_direct_procurement_details, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an EKAP session (only implied by the optional cookies parameter). There is no explicit context for when this search is appropriate versus other procurement-related tools.

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