get_sayistay_document_unified

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 ('clean Markdown format'), which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-open world, and idempotent operations, so the bar is lower, and the description complements this with output details without contradiction.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output format with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 (simple retrieval with 2 required parameters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and output format, though it could better integrate with sibling tools for clearer usage context.

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%, providing full parameter documentation (decision_id and decision_type with descriptions and enum). The description doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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: 'retrieving full text of a Sayıştay audit decision' with a specific resource (audit decision) and verb (retrieving). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact document type (Sayıştay audit decisions), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar document retrieval tools like get_anayasa_document_unified.

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 some usage guidance with 'Use this when retrieving full text of a Sayıştay audit decision,' which implies context. However, it doesn't specify when to use alternatives (e.g., search_sayistay_unified for finding decisions vs. this for retrieving text) or mention prerequisites like needing a decision_id from search results, which is only hinted at in the schema.

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