magaza__endpoint_ara

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns the operation's real name, parameters, and HTTP method, and its output feeds another tool. It does not mention result limits, caching, or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the routing rule, the follow-up tool, and examples. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (operation name, parameters, HTTP method) plus the downstream workflow via magaza__cagir. It does not describe result ordering, how endpoint identity is keyed, or pagination, and the example-query language mismatch could mislead slightly.

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%, so the schema already documents sorgu/limit/magaza and sets the 3 baseline. The description adds sample queries ('subscription price', 'testflight tester', 'crash rate') that show how to shape a query, which is genuine extra value, though the Turkish example 'abonelik fiyat' sits in tension with the schema's instruction to search in API terms rather than Turkish.

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 precise verb+resource (searches endpoints across all App Store Connect and Google Play APIs) and its scope (both stores). It also positions itself in the toolchain by naming magaza__cagir as the executor of results, so an agent can distinguish it from the concrete appstore__*/play__* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('if no ready-made tool does your job, use this first') and what to do next ('execute the result with magaza__cagir'). This is a clear when-to-use plus named-alternative pattern, leaving little to inference.

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