Mevzuat MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing search behavior (Boolean operators, exact phrase matching), return format (list with metadata, pagination info), and practical usage guidance (how to use results for content retrieval). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers core operational behavior thoroughly.

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, sibling differentiation, search syntax, return format, and examples. While comprehensive, some redundancy exists (Boolean operators explained twice), but overall it's efficiently organized with each section adding value.

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 tool's complexity (search with multiple parameters), no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, differentiation, search behavior, return format, and practical examples - everything needed for effective use without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (mainly reinforcing Boolean operators in the main text). It meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('search for') and resource ('Turkish Presidential Regulations') with scope ('in both titles and content'). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_within_cbyonetmelik' which searches within specific regulations' articles, establishing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use search_within_cbyonetmelik to search within a specific regulation's articles and get article-level results.' This clearly defines the boundary between general regulation search and article-level search within regulations.

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