magaza__genel_bakis

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 behavior annotations do not: it merges two separate stores into one list and aligns the same product across platforms, which is meaningful context about how the tool operates.

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, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the usage framing. Every clause carries 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 zero-param aggregation tool with no output schema, the description gives only a rough sense of the return (a merged list with paired entries) and says nothing about field structure, ordering, or volume. Adequate to call it correctly, but thin on what the agent will actually receive.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 concrete verb and resource (lists the apps across two stores in one list) and adds a differentiating behavior: pairing iOS/Android counterparts of the same product. An agent can distinguish this cross-store aggregation from the per-store siblings like appstore__uygulamalar and play__uygulamalar, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 closing line 'Nerede neyim var sorusunun tek çağrılık cevabı' frames the use case as a single-call overview, which is implied guidance. There is no explicit when-not or routing to alternatives such as magaza__abonelik_karsilastir or the per-store list tools.

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