search_tuzuk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope (title/content), query syntax, return fields (statute number, title, dates, Official Gazette info), and the ability to list all statutes with dates. This adequately covers behavior for a read-only search tool.

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 with no wasted words. It uses clear formatting (IMPORTANT note, example queries, returns list) and front-loads the key point about keyword-based search. Every sentence adds 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, input syntax, and output shape (aided by output schema existence). It lacks mention of sibling search_within_tuzuk for in-document searching, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are detailed, but the description adds value by explaining query syntax and providing examples that clarify how Boolean operators and exact phrases work. This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema alone.

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 for Turkish Statutes/Regulations (Tüzük) in titles and content. It specifies that search is keyword-based, not by statute number, and provides examples. This distinctly identifies the resource and action, differentiating it from siblings that search other regulation types.

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 tells the agent when not to use this tool (not for statute number searches) and gives query syntax and examples. However, it does not mention alternative tools like search_kanun or search_within_tuzuk for related but different searches, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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