Yargı MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Markdown format') and pagination behavior ('Returns paginated'). Annotations already cover read-only, closed-world, and idempotent characteristics, so the description appropriately focuses on output characteristics not captured in structured fields.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first establishes when to use the tool, the second specifies key behavioral characteristics (format and pagination). No wasted words or redundant 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, comprehensive annotations, complete schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides exactly what's needed. It covers purpose, format, and pagination behavior without needing to explain parameters or return values that are already documented elsewhere.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or affect results.

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 action ('retrieving full text') and resource ('BDDK banking regulation decision'), distinguishing it from generic fetch/search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'get_bedesten_document_markdown' which appears to serve a similar function for a different document 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 provides basic context ('when retrieving full text of a BDDK banking regulation decision') but doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'search_bddk_decisions' for finding documents before retrieving them. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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