search_kvkk_decisions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the search domain (Turkish data protection decisions) and case types, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. 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 with just two sentences that directly address purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with good annotations and schema coverage.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It specifies the domain and use cases, though it could be slightly more complete by mentioning result format or distinguishing more clearly 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 well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.

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 for Turkish data protection (KVKK/GDPR equivalent) decisions, specifying the resource domain. It distinguishes from generic 'search' by focusing on KVKK decisions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_bddk_decisions' or 'search_rekabet_kurumu_decisions' which 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 some usage context with 'Use this when searching Turkish data protection (KVKK/GDPR equivalent) decisions' and mentions specific case types (privacy, consent, data breach). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for similar searches in other domains, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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