play__abonelik_fiyatlari

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the 'diger_bolgeler' fallback applied to unlisted countries, which the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the secondary fallback detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the main behavior plus the notable fallback rule. It lacks only explicit scope/collation 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (ulke, plan_id, urun_id, paket_adi) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('getirir') and resource (country-by-country prices for a Play subscription's base plan), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from the broader play__abonelikler listing tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of 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?

Usage context is only implied: the fallback behavior for unlisted countries hints at when the result set is complete, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like play__abonelikler or appstore__abonelik_fiyatlari. Nothing is misleading, but the routing guidance is thin.

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