search_anayasa_unified

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds minor context (norm control filters include reviewed norm metadata) but does not expand on behavioral implications beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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: two sentences, no wasted words. The key instruction ('Use this when...') is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the search domain (Turkish Constitutional Court decisions), decision types, and pagination. Minor gap: could mention that results are a list of documents, but output schema likely covers that.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal additional meaning (e.g., 'norm control filters include reviewed norm metadata'), but this is vague and not necessary. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 decision records, specifying the two decision types (norm control and individual applications). The name and description differentiate it from sibling search tools targeting other courts/agencies.

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 says 'Use this when searching Turkish Constitutional Court decision records', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies other tools for other domains.

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