play__cokme_orani

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 the useful fact that the data comes from Play Developer Reporting (an external source), consistent with openWorldHint, but says nothing about latency, freshness, or metric caveats.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the motivating question second. No filler, though the second sentence is more sales pitch than operational detail.

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 metric query with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description plus annotations give the agent enough to call it correctly. It lacks any note on granularity or timezone handling for the day parameter, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters (paket_adi, gun with its default of 14) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about these parameters, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Android vitals çökme oranını getirir') plus the data source (Play Developer Reporting), which clearly separates it from siblings like play__yorumlar or play__abonelikler. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stays 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?

The second sentence frames a use case ('why is my app crashing, since when has it increased'), which implies when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the guidance is only implied.

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