magaza__abonelik_karsilastir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful output behavior beyond annotations: it specifies that the result surfaces price differences between stores and flags missing products, not just raw subscription data. Return format and pagination are unstated, which is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the store scope, then immediately stating the value added. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description specifies the compared fields and the anomalies caught, which is the essential return content an agent needs to set expectations. Safety is covered by annotations. Missing pagination or response-shape detail is a minor gap for this comparison tool.

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%, so the country code conversion (TUR/TR) and the dual-store app lookup semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description references requested-country prices but adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'karşılaştırır' (compares), the resource 'abonelikler' (subscriptions), and the cross-store scope spanning App Store and Google Play. It enumerates the compared fields (product ids, durations, prices) and the detected anomalies (price differences, missing products), making it clearly distinct from single-store siblings like appstore__abonelikler and play__abonelikler.

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 cross-store comparison scope implicitly tells the agent when this tool is preferred over the single-store subscription tools, and the 'iki mağaza arasındaki' framing excludes single-store use. However, it never names an alternative explicitly or states a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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