search_uyusmazlik_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive, cacheable search operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, result formats, or pagination. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline for tools with good annotation coverage.

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—just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and context. Every word serves a clear function with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 (18 parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the specific legal domain and court function, which is valuable context. However, it could better address usage scenarios or result interpretation to fully compensate for the tool's complexity.

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 all 18 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 jurisdictional dispute court (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) decisions' and explains the court's function ('Resolves conflicts between civil and administrative courts'). This specifies both the verb ('searching') and resource ('decisions'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_anayasa_unified' or 'search_bddk_decisions' that search 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, specify use cases, or indicate prerequisites. The phrase 'Use this when searching...' is directive but doesn't offer contextual differentiation from other search tools in the server.

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