search_sayistay_unified

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the supported decision types, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering core aspects, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (19 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough for a search tool. It specifies the domain and decision types, which is crucial context. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the output format or result structure, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 input schema fully documents all 19 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 Turkish Court of Accounts (Sayıştay) audit decisions.' It specifies the exact resource (audit decisions) and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning support for 'Genel Kurul, Temyiz Kurulu, and Daire decisions,' which is unique among the sibling tools focused on 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this when searching Turkish Court of Accounts (Sayıştay) audit decisions.' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying the domain (Sayıştay), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for similar searches in other domains, which prevents a perfect score.

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