play__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 structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned fields (duration, status, priced countries), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, nor about auth requirements for a Play Console endpoint.

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 the purpose front-loaded and the return fields following. No filler or repetition, though it is short enough that it leaves little room for the routing information an agent would benefit from.

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 compensates by enumerating what is returned (süre, durum, fiyatlandırılan ülkeler), and read-only annotations cover the mutation profile. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the many subscription-related siblings.

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 all three parameters (paket_adi, limit, arsivi_dahil_et) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 resource (abonelikler ve temel planlar), and goes further by naming the returned fields (süre, durum, ülke). It partially distinguishes itself from the price-oriented sibling play__abonelik_fiyatlari, but does not name that sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus play__abonelik_fiyatlari, appstore__abonelikler, or magaza__abonelik_karsilastir, all of which sit in the same domain. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'listeler', so the agent must guess at routing.

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