Yargı MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-open world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that it 'auto-detects decision type from URL,' which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations, and implies it handles paginated content (referencing 'page_number'), though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the use case, and the second explains auto-detection from URL. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage context, and key behavioral detail (auto-detection), leaving no significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema: it implies 'document_url' comes from 'search results' and that content is paginated, but doesn't provide additional format or usage details. 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 specific action ('retrieving full text') and resource ('Constitutional Court decision'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for full text retrieval rather than search (e.g., 'search_anayasa_unified') or other document types. The mention of 'auto-detects decision type from URL' adds unique functionality.

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 'Use this when retrieving full text of a Constitutional Court decision,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings include search tools that might be used first to find URLs.

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