search_uyusmazlik_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which sufficiently inform the agent about safety. The description adds the source-specific behavioral context (searching full text or case/decision numbers) but does not extend 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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple search nature, full schema documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete for the tool's function. It could briefly mention that results are a list of decisions, but the 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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions matching case/decision numbers based on search_scope, but this is already detailed in the schema. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi decisions, which resolves conflicts between civil and administrative courts. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting different document types.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when searching jurisdictional dispute court decisions,' providing clear context. However, it does not offer explicit alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, though sibling names imply other search tools for different sources.

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