search_sigorta_tahkim_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds useful context: it searches from Hakem Karar Dergisi journals (64 issues, 2010-2025) and covers specific insurance dispute types. No contradictory behavior is mentioned.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. First sentence clearly states the tool's purpose; second adds coverage details and examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two parameters, full schema coverage, output schema exists, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and usage. It could optionally mention pagination or result format, but output schema likely covers that.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by providing keyword examples in Turkish and specifying the domain (insurance disputes), which goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it searches Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu decisions from a specific journal, covering insurance disputes with years and issues. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting other databases (e.g., search_bddk_decisions, search_kvkk_decisions) and from search_within_sigorta_tahkim_issue which narrows to a single issue.

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 implies usage for insurance arbitration decisions and provides example keywords, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_within_sigorta_tahkim_issue or other search tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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