Yargı MCP

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about the specific regulatory domain (BDDK decisions) and use cases, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'decision' in this context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the regulatory body, domain, and use cases without any redundant information or fluff.

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 (search with pagination), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly defines the search domain and use cases, though it could benefit from mentioning the Turkish language requirement for keywords or distinguishing from sibling tools.

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%, with both parameters ('keywords' and 'page') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for keywords or pagination behavior. With high schema coverage, the 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's purpose as searching Turkish banking regulation (BDDK) decisions, specifying the domain (banking licenses, fintech, payment services). It uses a specific verb ('searching') and resource ('BDDK decisions'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_kik_v2_decisions' or 'search_rekabet_kurumu_decisions' that search different regulatory domains.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('when searching Turkish banking regulation (BDDK) decisions') and mentions specific use cases (banking licenses, fintech, payment services). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling search tools for different regulatory bodies.

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