get_mevzuat_gerekce

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the data source (bedesten.adalet.gov.tr), the content structure, and the condition that not all laws have a gerekçe. However, it does not mention network dependency, authentication needs, or read-only nature. Still, the provided information is useful and honest.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear action line, bullet points for content, and two lines for constraints. It front-loads the core purpose and uses efficient formatting without waste.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what content it returns, prerequisite conditions, and the workflow. It is fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with a detailed description for gerekce_id. The tool description reiterates the prerequisite but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves law rationale (gerekçe) and lists specific content types (purpose, committee reports, article justifications). It distinguishes from siblings by limiting to KANUN type legislation and referencing search_mevzuat as a prerequisite.

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 explicitly states the tool is only for KANUN laws with published rationale, advises checking gerekceId in search_mevzuat results, and provides a clear workflow: search → check → call. This gives excellent when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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