search_within_cbyonetmelik

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the two search modes, requirement for OPENROUTER_API_KEY in semantic mode, uppercase Boolean operators, case sensitivity only in keyword mode, and result limits (1-50). Minor omission: no mention of error behavior if API key is missing.

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: two opening sentences define purpose, followed by a clear bullet-style listing of modes with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, output schema), the description covers the core functionality well. It explains modes and parameter usage, but does not address error scenarios (e.g., invalid mevzuat_no, missing API key) or specify that output schema details exist. Minor gaps 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that Boolean operators must be uppercase, providing concrete examples for both modes, and specifying that case_sensitive only applies in keyword mode. This enhances the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: search within a specific Presidential Regulation's articles using keyword or semantic search. It specifies the resource (Presidential Regulation articles) and distinguishes from siblings like search_within_cbgenelge or search_within_kanun by naming the regulation type.

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 explains when to use keyword vs semantic modes, but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over sibling tools for different regulation types. It assumes the agent knows that this tool is for 'cbyonetmelik'.

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