appstore__abonelikler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (productId, duration, status), but discloses nothing about pagination, auth scope, or filtering limits. Adequate but not rich.

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 tightly-scoped sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return fields appended. No wasted text; only slightly terse for a tool with an undocumented output shape.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, listing the returned fields (productId, duration, status) is enough for correct invocation. Missing only pagination/ordering details, which are minor here.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter uygulama_id is fully documented in the schema as coming from appstore__uygulamalar. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('listeler') and a precise resource ('abonelik gruplarını ve içlerindeki abonelikleri'), which is distinguishable from sibling appstore__abonelik_fiyatlari (prices) and play__abonelikler. It also names the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it falls short of the 5 bar tied to sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., appstore__abonelik_fiyatlari for pricing) and no exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose merely implies a usage context, and no routing help is offered.

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