ucret_tahmini

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates estimates but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data sources, accuracy, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 in Turkish that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundant 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or output format, nor does it provide usage context relative to sibling tools. The high parameter count and lack of structured metadata require more descriptive 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 high at 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it uses two locations. It doesn't explain the 'saglayici' (provider) enum options or 'taksi_turu' (taxi type) implications, which would be valuable given the schema's coverage isn't 100%.

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: 'İki konum arası taksi ücreti tahmini hesapla' (Calculate taxi fare estimate between two locations). It specifies the action (calculate estimate) and resource (taxi fare), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'taksi_cagir' (call taxi) or 'yolculuk_durumu' (trip status), which would require a 5.

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 like 'taksi_cagir' for actual booking or 'yolculuk_durumu' for checking ongoing trips, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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