search_rekabet_kurumu_decisions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it specifies the domain (Turkish competition law) but doesn't detail aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations providing core safety info, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative by including key usage details without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, search functionality) and rich annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the domain but lacks details on result format, pagination, or how it integrates with sibling tools. With annotations and schema covering safety and parameters, the description meets a basic threshold but leaves room for improvement in contextual guidance.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Search in decision title', date formats, enum values). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 states the tool searches 'Turkish competition law and antitrust decisions (Rekabet Kurumu)', which provides a clear verb ('search') and resource domain. However, it doesn't specify what aspect of decisions it searches (e.g., metadata, full text) or how it differs from the sibling tool 'get_rekabet_kurumu_document', making it somewhat vague about its exact scope.

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 only says 'Use this when searching Turkish competition law and antitrust decisions', which gives a general context but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search' (generic) or 'get_rekabet_kurumu_document' (specific document retrieval). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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