search_bedesten_unified

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already indicate this is a safe, read-only search operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the scope ('multiple Turkish courts'), listing supported court types, and noting search limitations in the parameter description (e.g., 'Wildcards (*,?), regex patterns (/regex/), fuzzy search (~), and proximity search are NOT supported'). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('searching across multiple Turkish courts') followed by the specific court types supported. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema description coverage, and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description is complete enough. It provides the essential context about the tool's scope (cross-court Turkish legal searches) without needing to duplicate information available in structured fields.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides comprehensive documentation for all 6 parameters including detailed operator explanations for 'phrase' and enum mappings for 'birimAdi'. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'searching across multiple Turkish courts in a single query' and lists the supported court types (Yargıtay, Danıştay, Local Courts, Appeals Courts, KYB). It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Turkish courts'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_anayasa_unified' or 'search_sayistay_unified' which likely search different legal 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 implied usage context by stating 'Use this when searching across multiple Turkish courts in a single query,' which suggests this is the unified tool for cross-court searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling search tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the court types mentioned.

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