search_anayasa_unified

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint', 'idempotentHint', and 'openWorldHint', covering key behavioral aspects. The description adds that the tool 'supports norm control decisions and individual application decisions', which is functional context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination limits, idempotency details). No contradiction with annotations.

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 (25 words), immediately stating the purpose and the two decision types. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information. It is optimally concise for an AI agent.

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 has 12 parameters and an output schema, the description is relatively brief but covers the essential domain and decision type distinction. The schema descriptions handle parameter-level details. The agent might benefit from a clearer statement that some parameters apply only to one decision type, but the schema already indicates this. Overall, it is complete enough without being verbose.

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 baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions that norm control filters include 'reviewed norm metadata', but this does not add detailed meaning beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters. The high schema coverage means the description does not need to compensate significantly.

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' and lists the two supported decision types (norm control, individual application). It is specific about the resource and verb, and the name 'search_anayasa_unified' combined with the sibling set distinguishes it from other search tools for different 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 opens with 'Use this when searching Turkish Constitutional Court decision records', providing a direct usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling list of other search tools for different domains (e.g., BDDK, bedesten) implicitly guides the agent to use this tool only for Constitutional Court searches.

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