search_ilan_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool returns (public announcements, tender notices, etc.) and sources (BIK, UYAP), but lacks critical behavioral details like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is informative but incomplete for operational transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return types, categories, and sources. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some details, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's scope, return types, categories, and sources, which complements the structured data. With an output schema, it doesn't need to detail return values. Minor gaps in behavioral transparency prevent a perfect score.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but does provide context on categories and sources that help interpret parameter values like ad_type_filter or category. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool searches Turkish government announcements on ilan.gov.tr, specifying the exact resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_tenders or get_recent_tenders by covering a broader range of announcement types (e.g., real estate, job postings, legal notices) beyond just tenders.

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 for searching various official advertisements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_tenders or get_recent_tenders. It provides context about the types of announcements covered but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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