search_anayasa_unified

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive, and repeatable search operation. The description adds context by specifying the two decision types supported, which helps clarify the tool's scope beyond what annotations convey. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details (though output schema may cover some of this).

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place—there's no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core use case, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand when to apply this tool.

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 (12 parameters, some with enums) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the decision types, which is crucial context for using the tool correctly. With annotations covering safety and an output schema likely detailing return values, the description doesn't need to explain behavioral or output aspects, though it could benefit from more usage guidance relative to siblings.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic value but also doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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 Turkish Constitutional Court decisions and specifies the two supported decision types (norm control and individual applications). It provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Turkish Constitutional Court decisions'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling search tools like 'search_bddk_decisions' or 'search_sayistay_unified' that search different legal databases.

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 with 'Use this when searching Turkish Constitutional Court decisions,' which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative search tools on the server (like search_bddk_decisions for different legal domains) or when not to use it. The guidance is present but limited to the tool's scope without comparative context.

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